This week the Pretoria High Court sat as a full bench to hear one of the most consequential RAF cases in years: a challenge by the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (Pipla), which represents some 600 attorneys and advocates acting for road accident victims, to the Road Accident Fund’s directive making mediation a compulsory precondition to litigation. The matter was heard on 11 and 12 June 2026, and judgment is awaited.
What is being challenged
Just over a year ago, the RAF introduced a directive requiring claimants to participate in mediation before they may approach the court. Pipla’s case is that the directive is unlawful: mediation was designed as a voluntary process, and only Parliament or the Rules Board for Courts of Law has the power to amend the rules of court. A practice directive, the association argues, cannot introduce a new procedural hurdle that limits a litigant’s direct access to the courts. As Pipla chairman Adv Justin Erasmus put it, the question is “whether injured South Africans can be denied access to court through an administrative process” (as reported by Times Network).
The access to justice concern
Road accident victims are among the country’s most vulnerable litigants, often facing severe physical, emotional and financial hardship while their claims are pending. Pipla’s position is not opposition to mediation itself – properly resourced, voluntary mediation conducted in good faith can serve claimants well. The objection is to compulsion, particularly where the mediation system has, in Pipla’s view, shown significant operational shortcomings since its introduction.
Why this case matters beyond the RAF
The full bench will effectively be asked whether administrative instructions can trump established court rules – a separation of powers question with implications well beyond RAF litigation. If a directive can make a voluntary process compulsory, little prevents similar procedural barriers being erected elsewhere by administrative fiat rather than legislation.
A familiar pattern
This is not the first time the lawfulness of the RAF’s procedural innovations has come before the courts. In April the Supreme Court of Appeal struck down the amended RAF 1 claim form, holding that the RAF and the Minister had imposed additional claim requirements unlawfully. The mediation challenge raises the same underlying theme: access to statutory compensation may not be narrowed by administrative shortcut.
We are following the matter closely and will report on the judgment as soon as it is delivered.
Source: Times Network, “Full bench judges to hear case on compulsory mediation in RAF cases” (10 June 2026).
If you have an RAF claim affected by the compulsory mediation requirement, contact AC De Sousa Attorneys for advice on your position.
Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Every matter turns on its own facts. Consult an attorney before acting on anything stated here.
