Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd. (222/88) [1989] ZASCA 109 (21 September 1989)

Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd. (222/88) [1989] ZASCA 109 (21 September 1989)

Section 24(2) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972 is concerned only with the statutory period of prescription and does not provide relief for claims prescribed after a privately agreed extension. The appellant failed to satisfy the requirement that the respondent was not prepared to waive its right to invoke the statutory prescription period, as the respondent's refusal related only to the extended periods. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to relief under section 24(2)(a)(ii), and the application was correctly refused by the court a quo.

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 109
Parties
Appellant: Mogamat Abbass; Respondent: Allianz Insurance Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 1989
Case Number
222/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Leave to Serve Process After Prescription
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Botha, Vivier, Eksteen, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Prescription of Claims, Waiver of Prescription, Leave to Serve Process
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act Prescription of Claims Waiver of Prescription Leave to Serve Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mogamat Abbass

Appellant

Allianz Insurance Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Leave to Serve Process After Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 24(2)(a)(ii) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972 allows relief for claims prescribed after a privately agreed extension of prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's attorneys could not reasonably have been expected to serve process within the statutory prescriptive period.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent insurer was not prepared to waive its right to invoke prescription under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24(2) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972 is concerned only with the statutory period of prescription and does not provide relief for claims prescribed after a privately agreed extension. The appellant failed to satisfy the requirement that the respondent was not prepared to waive its right to invoke the statutory prescription period, as the respondent's refusal related only to the extended periods. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to relief under section 24(2)(a)(ii), and the application was correctly refused by the court a quo.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.