- SemantisAI Judgment summaries.
- Posts
- Majope and Others v The Road Accident Fund (663/2022) [2023] ZASCA 145 (8 November 2023)
Majope and Others v The Road Accident Fund (663/2022) [2023] ZASCA 145 (8 November 2023)
A court must refrain from making orders not sought by the parties.
This is one of two recent cases in which the Supreme Court of Appeal has admonished lower Courts for what is termed ‘Judicial industry”, the other matter is Road Accident Fund v Taylor and other matters [2023] ZASCA 64.
The case involves an appeal against the orders granted by the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court, Mbombela, in an application for default judgment against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The appellants, Tina Majope, Abednego Machabe, Fortunate Nwa-Khosa Ngomana, and Phathuthedzo Tshavhungwe, were plaintiffs in separate proceedings in the high court. They had consulted and mandated Ms. Ngomana to lodge claims against the RAF for damages they suffered in separate accidents. The RAF conceded liability for negligence in both claims, and the remaining dispute concerned the quantum of the claims. The high court granted default judgment and made additional unsolicited orders against the appellants and their legal representatives, which led to the appeal.
Incorporation of Attorney and Client Fee Agreement: The primary issue revolved around whether an attorney and client fee agreement, particularly a contingency fee agreement, should be incorporated into a court order. The court had to determine the validity and implications of such agreements and whether they should form part of the court's orders in cases involving claims against the Road Accident Fund.
Judicial Oversight of Fee Agreements: The court considered the extent of judicial oversight over fee agreements between attorneys and clients, particularly in the context of claims against the Road Accident Fund. This involved examining the legal principles governing fee agreements and the court's authority to make orders regarding the payment of legal fees.
Rights of Legal Representatives: The court also delved into the rights of legal representatives, specifically Ms. Ngomana and Mr. Tshavhungwe, in claiming fees for the services rendered to the appellants. The court had to determine whether the legal representatives were entitled to claim fees and costs, and whether the high court's orders deprived them of their rights without due process.
In conclusion, I find that the high court materially misdirected itself when it made orders that were not sought by the parties.
The core legal principle underlying the decision is that fee agreements unrelated to litigation, such as attorney and client fee agreements, should not be made an order of the court. The court's decision reaffirms the importance of contractual autonomy, clarifies the distinction between different types of fee agreements, and underscores the court's discretion in incorporating fee agreements into court orders. The ratio decidendi emphasizes the court's authority to determine the relevance and appropriateness of incorporating fee agreements into court orders and the limited role of the court in overseeing non-contingency fee agreements.
Keep reading
Peter v Mimosa Court Shareblock RF (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZAWCHC 242 (5 September 2024)
The 20 business day time limit for a director to apply for a review of a board's decision to remove them, as stipulated in section 71(5) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, commences from the date of the board's determination, not from the date the director receives formal notification of that decision.
M.L.C.B v Master of the High Court and Others (3656_2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 172 (26 January 2023)
In motion proceedings, the filing of further affidavits without the court's permission is impermissible and such affidavits may be regarded as pro non scripto, meaning they are treated as if they were never filed.
Estelle Le Roux and Another v Dielemaar Holdings (Cape) Pty Ltd and Another (414_2023) [2024] ZASCA 118 (25 July 2024)
Delay in the running of prescription in favour of the principal debtor interrupts or delays the running of prescription in favour of the surety.