Pretoria - Six law firms which challenged Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula’s appointment of Collins Letsoalo as head of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) lost their legal bid to have him axed from his position.
Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Judge Brenda Neukircher found that the lawyers and their firms did not have the legal standing to launch the application. She turned it down on this technicality and said it was thus not necessary for her to decide on the merits of the application.
The attorneys from the law firms which include K Malao Inc, Senne Company Inc and Mabuse Attorneys, were all former RAF panel attorneys who were ousted more than a year ago.
At the time Letsoalo decided that the RAF was no longer going to make use of a panel of attorneys, among others, in a bid to save money.
The attorneys, in their bid to get rid of Letsoalo, among other things argued that he made several “misrepresentations” in his CV when he applied for the job and no one bothered to check that at the time.
They argued that his appointment was irrational and should be set aside, and expressed frustration at the manner in which he handled payment claims for road accident victims. They said that many of their clients remained out of pocket despite court orders that they must be compensated by the fund.
According to them, a dysfunctional RAF adversely affected the rights of plaintiff attorneys.
Judge Neukircher was told that the attorneys and their clients had an interest in a RAF which was competently run and managed, and that the appointment of Letsoalo “poses a threat to the proper functioning of the RAF”.
According to them, their rights had been affected by Letsoalo’s appointment.
It was argued on behalf of the entity that this application was self-serving as the only parties who wished to review the decision to appoint Letsoalo were the applicants, all former RAF panel attorneys.
Judge Neukircher, in finding that the applicants did not have the legal standing to bring this application, said an attorney derived his mandate from his client, who in turn was the RAF’s client.
The attorneys simply acted on their clients’ mandates. She pointed out that none of the RAF clients were before the court, complaining about Letsoalo.
The judge said no facts were presented to the court to prove that these claimants were not paid or that they were hampered by the RAF in finding justice in the courts.
“This application has more to do with the self-interests of the applicants than their professed duty towards their clients. This is made more obvious by the fact that there has been much litigation on the subject of the termination of the panel of attorneys by the RAF,” the judge said.
She added that “the fact is that this matter is about little more than the fact that the applicants are aggrieved by their termination from the RAF panel of attorneys and/or the fact that the parlous financial state of the entity (which has existed for many years prior to Letsoalo’s appointment) has resulted in delayed payment of plaintiffs’ claims”.
In dismissing the application on the legal technicality, the judge also slapped the applicants with the RAF’s legal costs in this matter.
Pretoria News