Download PDF

South Africa Ruling

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Cellular Insurance Managers (Pty) Ltd v Foshini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd (12262/07) [2010] ZAWCHC 159 (14 June 2010)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success regarding the statutory defence under Section 48 of the Short Term Insurance Act. However, the court acknowledged that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion on the contractual claim, and therefore granted leave to appeal on that issue. The matter was deemed to merit the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the contractual claim; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the judgment and orders made on 11 May 2010, on the grounds set forth in paragraphs 8 to 23 of its notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 May 2010.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

02

Material facts

Parties

Cellular Insurance Managers (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Foshini Retail Group (Pty) Limited

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Orders Delivered on 11 May 2010.

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contends that the judgment and orders delivered on 11 May 2010 were incorrect and that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion, particularly regarding the contractual claim and the defence based on Section 48 of the Short Term Insurance Act.
Respondent
The respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal, arguing that the applicant has not shown reasonable prospects of success and that the judgment on the contractual claim and the statutory defence was correct.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013

    An applicant for leave to appeal must show reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.

  2. 02

    Short Term Insurance Act, No. 5 of 1998

    A defence based on Section 48 of the Short Term Insurance Act must be evaluated on its merits to determine if it could alter the outcome.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success regarding the statutory defence under Section 48 of the Short Term Insurance Act. However, the court acknowledged that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion on the contractual claim, and therefore granted leave to appeal on that issue. The matter was deemed to merit the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that while it was not persuaded by the statutory defence, it could not exclude the possibility of a different outcome on the contractual claim before another court.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the contractual claim; costs to be costs in the appeal.

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the judgment and orders made on 11 May 2010, on the grounds set forth in paragraphs 8 to 23 of its notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 May 2010.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Source and reliance status

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Ruling

[2010] ZAWCHC 159

IN THE

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WESTERN CAPE. HIGH COURT. CAPE TOWN)

CASE NUMBER: 12262/07

DATE: 14 JUNE 2010

In the matter between:

CELLULAR

INSURANCE MANAGERS

(PTY) LIMITED Applicant

and

FOSCHINI RETAIL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED Respondent

JUDGMENT

(Application for Leave to Appeal)

FOURIE.J:

Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment and orders made on 11 May 2010. The application is opposed

It is trite to succeed in an application of this nature, the applicant has to show that it has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

I have considered the grounds of appeal relied upon by applicant, as well as the submissions made on behalf of both parties. I am not persuaded that applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that another Court may come to a different conclusion on the defence based on Section 48 of the Short Term Insurance Act, No. 5 of 1998.

In regard to the contractual claim on which I found in favour of the respondent, I believe that I have come to the correct decision.

However, I cannot rule out the possibility that another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion on this issue. In the

result I am persuaded that leave to appeal should be granted on this issue. In my view, the matter merits the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In the result the following order is made:

The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against my judgment and orders made on 11 May 2010, on the grounds set forth in paragraphs 8 to 23 of its notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 May 2010;

The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

FOURIE.J

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Short Term Insurance Act, No. 5 of 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.