CGU Insurance Ltd v Rumdel Construction (Pty) Ltd (323/2002) [2003] ZASCA 45; [2003] 2 All SA 597 (SCA); 2004 (2) SA 622 (SCA) (16 May 2003)

CGU Insurance Ltd v Rumdel Construction (Pty) Ltd (323/2002) [2003] ZASCA 45; [2003] 2 All SA 597 (SCA); 2004 (2) SA 622 (SCA) (16 May 2003)

The court held that although the amendment introduced a new insurance contract as the basis for the claim for the loss suffered in March 1996, the debt claimed remained the same in substance. The original summons conveyed, in the broad sense required by the Prescription Act, that the debt was payable by reason of a contractual undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff for the specified loss. The change in the contract relied upon did not mean that a different debt was claimed. The court distinguished the present case from Neon and Cold Cathode Illuminations (Pty) Ltd v Ephron, Imprefed (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission, and Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd, finding that those cases...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 45
Parties
Appellant: CGU Insurance Limited; Respondent: Rumdel Construction (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2003
Case Number
323/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Court a Quo on Amendment to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Marais, Scott, Cloete, Jones, Shongwe
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription Act, Insurance Contracts, Cause of Action, Interruption of Prescription
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Prescription Act Insurance Contracts Cause of Action Interruption of Prescription

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CGU Insurance Limited

Appellant

Rumdel Construction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Court a Quo on Amendment to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the amendment to the particulars of claim introduce a new claim that had become prescribed under the Prescription Act?
  2. 2 Is the debt claimed in the amendment substantially the same as the debt originally claimed?
  3. 3 Does the introduction of a new insurance contract as the basis for liability constitute a new cause of action for prescription purposes?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the amendment introduced a new insurance contract as the basis for the claim for the loss suffered in March 1996, the debt claimed remained the same in substance. The original summons conveyed, in the broad sense required by the Prescription Act, that the debt was payable by reason of a contractual undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff for the specified loss. The change in the contract relied upon did not mean that a different debt was claimed. The court distinguished the present case from Neon and Cold Cathode Illuminations (Pty) Ltd v Ephron, Imprefed (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission, and Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd, finding that those cases...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.