But Justice Hughes said: “The conundrum of the RAF is that they cannot rescind the mandate of the counsel and replace it with other lawyers they fund to perform the same function as a lawyer.” The court stated that the decision of Ntombela v Road Accident Fund 2018 (4) SA 486 (GJ), Kleinhans v Road Accident Fund  3 All its 850 (GP) and many others, can be added as a reference. The court added that the value of the receivables paid by the RAF averages about R$4.1 billion per month. The Fund`s fixed operating costs are approximately R$800 million per month, while it receives approximately R$3.5 billion per month from the fuel tax. The monthly deficit is immediately obvious. The current (unpaid) amount of the RAF, due to the applicants, amounts to approximately R19 billion. In its judgment, it stated: “The RAF is the only institution responsible for compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents. The RAF has a social responsibility to continue to do so.” (a) the RAF intends to obtain more prosecutors through its usual recruitment procedures and informs the volume of work (number of cases in dispute in the event of litigation) in relation to the reasonable number of lawyers needed to deal effectively with this case; (b) with a timetable for the target number originally set for the end of the current fiscal year and c) the RAF has chosen the appropriate route to deviate from the previous approach, because the Road Accidents Fund Act 1996 (the Law) provides that the RAF must pay compensation for victims of road accidents in accordance with the law that gives the RAF 120 days from the closing date of the claim for liability and claim. It is only in exceptional cases that litigation is contemplated and the RAF should not be expected to relocate its investigation of requests from outside lawyers, as has been done. It is important to note that a study by Professor Hennie Klopper on RAF affairs, conducted in the Gauteng Division Square of the High Court, Pretoria, showed that 99.56% of cases were tried and less than 1% (0.45%) on trial. The study was conducted in the Supreme Court of Pretoria, which has the most contentious issues in the country.
Although research has focused on Pretoria, the LRAs note that this reflects the general trend in all jurisdictions in South Africa. The RAF cases are settled by both parties and the transaction agreements are then tried by a court. In addition, the panel of lawyers and the RAF are regularly criticized for the way they handle these outsourced claims. In a recent ruling in Mpumalanga High Court in the Mncube v RAF case, Legodi JP said the following caused a great outcry among the lawyers involved. In particular, they asked that they be able to continue their services at least until the end of this month (June) so as not to leave the public and the administration of justice indifferent. In 2014, the RAF invited, through a request for a submission to the RAF/2014/00023, offers from lawyers to provide services to the RAF`s representation in relation to claims against it in the various districts, regional and high courts of South Africa, known as “third-party claims”. As part of a successful tendering process, 103 law firms have been appointed to train RAF “panel lawyers.” The RAF`s service level agreement with its legal board five years ago expired last month after being extended for a few months. (4) Service level agreements between the RAF and its former law firm expired on 31 May 2020 as a result of changes to the service level agreement, which was due to expire in November 2019.