The De Bod v Road Accident Fund Ruling
The De Bod v Road Accident Fund matter represents a significant blow to contingency practitioners attempting to balance their clients’ Constitutional rights to have access to the Court against their own Constitutional right to fair and reasonable compensation for professional services rendered subject to a valid contingency fee agreement. Contingency fee agreements have been described as the “poor man’s keys to the courthouse” – however the De Bod ruling has potentially taken the very key afforded to indigent clients out of their reach.
Despite the ongoing argument concerning VAT being included in the 25% “cap” on success fees the judgement goes further and also introduces “caps” on normal fees in Section 2(1)(b) fee arrangements. Following the full bench ruling by the North Gauteng High Court an application was filed for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appel which was granted on the 5 th of March 2026.
This page serves as a repository for relevant documentation about the case for interested parties.
Why This Case Matters
A balance needs to be found between the rights of the client and that of the contingent practitioner in as far as the payment of the capital and the recovery of reasonable fees subject to contingency fee arrangement is concerned.
Further, clarity and above all certainty are sought by the legal fraternity practicing subject to contingency fee agreements.
Arguments in favour of contingency fee agreements were that they will “increase access to justice, will spread the risk involved in litigation, may bring about greater public satisfaction, will promote freedom of contract, may encourage lawyers to engage more effort in litigation and may contribute towards deregulation of the legal profession by removing existing restrictions – in our respectful view the De Bod ruling represents a clear departure from the intention of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997.”
The court’s findings have significant ramifications for how legal fees are structured in RAF claims:
VAT Controversy: The court reaffirmed that Value Added Tax (VAT) must be included within the 25% cap.
Capping of Normal Fees in S2(1)(b) arrangements: effectively resulting in practitioners having to share fees and disbursements with clients and having the potential to exclude a certain class of claimant from contingency arrangements.
Current Legal Standing
The concern around De Bod v RAF matter, which is the current legal position, is rooted in the fact that it incorporates into the Act matters that are at odds with the CFA itself which creates more uncertainty – exposing practitioners to even higher risk of not recovering a reasonable fee and even expenses placing the future of contingency fee agreements in serious jeopardy.
Your Participation
We encourage you to engage with the documentation and information provided. Whether you are a practitioner trying to make sense of it all or a member of the public that has a question or comment to add – we would like to hear from you.
Related Reading
Follow the timeline of events as they unfold here: