In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) reaffirmed the principles governing pleadings and settlement finality. The court focused on the withdrawal of admissions and compromise.
In Road Accident Fund vs Sarah Wilson Lewis ([2025] ZASCA 174), the SCA confirmed the strict standards courts apply when parties seek to reopen settled issues. These standards protect the integrity of the litigation process. They also ensure certainty once matters reach trial readiness.
The case concerned whether the Road Accident Fund (RAF) could retract a prior compromise. The RAF also sought to amend its plea to withdraw an admission of causation. It attempted this years after the matter became trial-ready. The court viewed this attempt through the lens of withdrawal of admissions and compromise, which demands careful judicial scrutiny.
Background to the dispute and initial admissions
The dispute arose from a claim by Sarah Lewis following her husband’s death in a motor vehicle accident in 2006. At an early stage, the RAF admitted liability for 100% of proven damages. It settled certain heads of claim. These settlements relied on expert evidence from a jointly appointed specialist.
At the time, expert consensus confirmed that the claimant suffered a psychiatric injury causally linked to the accident. On that basis, the RAF admitted liability for general damages and medical expenses.
Later, the RAF appointed a new expert, Dr Khan. After receiving her reports, the RAF attempted to undo the earlier settlement. It sought withdrawal of admissions and a compromise by amending its plea. The RAF now denied that the claimant suffered an accident-related psychiatric injury. It also disputed causation and alleged that the claimant retained residual earning capacity.
Attempted withdrawal of the compromise and new expert evidence
The RAF argued that a common incorrect assumption of fact underpinned the settlement. According to the RAF, both parties assumed the psychiatric condition related to the accident. It claimed this mistake rendered the compromise voidable. On this basis, it sought withdrawal of admissions and a compromise. The RAF further argued that the new expert opinion created a defence that was previously unavailable.
The court rejected these submissions. It found that the compromise rested on extensive expert consensus at the time. This included joint minutes between psychiatrists and psychologists for both parties.
The later emergence of a dissenting opinion did not invalidate the original assumption. Nor did it amount to a mutual mistake. Allowing withdrawal of admissions and compromise in such circumstances would undermine settlement finality. It would also destabilise judicial case management.
Judicial scrutiny of amendments and prejudice
When addressing the proposed amendment, the court stressed an important distinction. Courts generally allow amendments to ensure disputes receive full ventilation. However, amendments that involve withdrawal of admissions attract stricter scrutiny. They require a bona fide explanation. They must also avoid prejudice that a costs order cannot cure.
In this case, the court found no bona fides. The RAF’s application would cause serious prejudice to the claimant. She had relied on the admission. She had also prepared her case on that basis. Re-litigating causation at such a late stage was not feasible. The timing, after trial readiness and many years of litigation, aggravated the prejudice. These factors weighed heavily against withdrawal of admissions and compromise.
The judgment reinforces that courts do not lightly set aside compromise agreements. A party cannot escape a valid settlement by relying on a later-disproved belief or a new expert opinion. Likewise, attempts at withdrawal of admissions and compromise require compelling justification. Courts will refuse such attempts when they introduce uncertainty into issues long regarded as settled.
Key takeaways
Exceptional circumstances must exist. They must show a real risk of grave injustice. A shift in litigation strategy or dissatisfaction with earlier expert consensus does not suffice. Reconsideration does not offer a “third bite at the cherry”. It remains an extraordinary remedy for rare cases.
Ultimately, compromise remains central to civil litigation. It promotes certainty, efficiency, and finality. Parties must approach settlements with care and diligence. Courts will enforce them strictly.
Attempts at withdrawal of admissions and compromise, without exceptional grounds, will fail. The RAF judgment serves as a clear reminder that parties cannot rewrite litigation strategy at the eleventh hour.
 |
 |
| Rethabile Shabalala | Senior Associate | mail me | | Maano Manavhela | Associate | mail me | |
| | Webber Wentzel | | |
