The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed, with costs, an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to reconsider an earlier refusal of leave to appeal in long-running litigation involving Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd, trading as Sunshine Hospital.
The judgment, delivered on 11 February by Acting Judge of Appeal Boissie Mbha (with Judge Xola Petse and Judge Daniel Dlodlo concurring), effectively ends the RAF’s efforts to block the enforcement of 181 court orders that remain in force and were never appealed or rescinded.
Sunshine Hospital, a private facility in Benoni that specialised in treated victims of motor vehicle accidents, closed after a six-year dispute with the RAF over unpaid medical claims.
According to evidence presented to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts in October 2025, the hospital had issued 6 285 summonses against the RAF. It alleged that more than R300 million in principal medical claims remained unpaid or were paid late, with approximately R21m in accrued interest at that stage.
The hospital property was later sold at auction for about R21m.
The SCA judgment did not determine the broader financial dispute between the parties or the causes of the hospital’s closure. The case before it concerned the enforcement of 181 specific court orders forming part of that wider dispute.
Those writs of execution related to 181 separate court orders obtained by Sunshine against the RAF: 116 from magistrates’ courts, 44 from regional courts, and 21 from the High Court. It was undisputed that none of these orders had been appealed or rescinded. Some were granted by agreement between the parties, others by default because of the RAF’s non-appearance, and others after trial.
After failing to comply with the orders, the RAF approached the High Court in Pretoria on an urgent basis in November 2023. It sought a stay of execution under Rule 45A of the Uniform Rules of Court, pending the institution – within 20 days – of proceedings for a declaratory order that it was not liable for Sunshine’s so-called “combined” or “global” claims. No such application was instituted.
The High Court dismissed the urgent application, describing it as an abuse of process and granting a punitive costs order. Leave to appeal was refused by the High Court on 30 January 2024 and, on petition, by the SCA on 2 May 2024.
The RAF then invoked section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, asking the President of the SCA to refer the refusal of leave to appeal for reconsideration. The matter was referred to a Full Bench, heard in September 2025, and determined in February 2026.
The combined claims controversy
At the heart of the dispute was Sunshine’s practice of submitting consolidated claims.
Under a co-operation agreement signed on 27 November 2007, the RAF stationed staff at Sunshine’s premises to assist in processing claims under section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act. To streamline operations and reduce duplication – at the RAF’s request – charges from doctors and other service providers for a particular patient were bundled into a single claim submitted by the hospital.
The RAF terminated the co-operation agreement by letter dated 11 July 2018. Payments, however, continued until 4 April 2020, when the RAF ceased paying amid concerns about alleged overcharging, patient referrals, and overservicing.
The RAF later contended that the consolidated billing model was unlawful, arguing that section 17(5) of the RAF Act required each supplier to submit its own claim, and the arrangement contravened ethical rules under the Health Professions Act.
Investigations were initiated by the RAF’s Forensic Investigation Department, the Special Investigating Unit, Universal Healthcare, and SizweNtsalubaGobodo Grant Thornton (SNG) and complaints were lodged with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). The SCA noted, however, that none of these processes had produced evidence demonstrating irregularities in the 181 claims underpinning the court orders. In particular, there was no SNG report before the Court, no finding of ethical breach by the HPCSA, and no evidence tying the Universal review to the specific claims embodied in the 181 judgments.
Sunshine maintained that the system had been introduced at the RAF’s request, operated transparently for years, and improved efficiency by avoiding duplication of documentation.
The High Court found there was “not the slightest indication” that any of the 181 claims were irregular and held that the RAF’s allegations were vague, unsubstantiated and, in some respects, contradicted by its own forensic report.
Mootness and reconsideration
By the time the reconsideration application was heard, the sale in execution that the RAF had initially sought to prevent had already taken place.
The SCA held that the matter had become moot. In terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, an appeal may be dismissed where the decision sought would have no practical effect. As the scheduled sale had already occurred, the relief originally sought could no longer be granted.
The Court nevertheless considered whether its earlier refusal of leave to appeal should be varied. The SCA emphasised it was not rehearing the merits of the combined-claims system afresh but determining – under section 17(2)(f) – whether the refusal of leave to appeal should be revisited.
Section 17(2)(f) permits reconsideration in limited circumstances where a grave failure of justice would otherwise result, or the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. The SCA said this is an exceptional mechanism and not an opportunity to re-argue matters already decided.
The RAF also sought to introduce what it described as new evidence arising from subsequent litigation between the parties. The SCA dismissed that application as unnecessary and an abuse of process, finding that the alleged material did not constitute fresh evidence and did not alter the issues already ventilated.
Having reviewed the High Court’s reasoning and the RAF’s grounds of complaint, the SCA concluded there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for the matter to be heard. The existence of the 181 unchallenged court orders was central to that conclusion.
Both the application to adduce new evidence and the reconsideration application were dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
