Cilliers N.O and Another v Truck & General Versekerings- Maatskappy Beperk [2005] ZAFSHC 159; [2005] ZAFSHC 89 (4 August 2005)

Cilliers N.O and Another v Truck & General Versekerings- Maatskappy Beperk [2005] ZAFSHC 159; [2005] ZAFSHC 89 (4 August 2005)

The court held that the respondent's plea, although referencing repealed legislation, did not fail to disclose a defence. The plea must be read as a whole, and it was clear that the respondent's real defence was that the insured vehicle exceeded the statutory maximum mass, thereby breaching the roadworthiness requirements under the applicable replacement statute. The applicants' exception was found to be late and improperly directed at the amended plea, when the relevant allegations were already present in the original plea. The reference to the repealed Act rendered the plea vague or confusing, not invalid, and the applicants should have sought clarification under Rule 23(1) rather than...

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 159
Parties
Applicant: Louis August Cilliers N.O.; Applicant: Susanna Johanna Cilliers N.O.; Respondent: Truck & General Versekerings-Maatskappy Beperk
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2005
Case Number
3284/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Amended Plea; Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Malherbe RP
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Insurance Contracts, Roadworthiness Requirements, Statutory Repeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Pleadings Insurance Contracts Roadworthiness Requirements Statutory Repeal Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis August Cilliers N.O.

Applicant

Susanna Johanna Cilliers N.O.

Applicant

Truck & General Versekerings-Maatskappy Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Amended Plea; Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea discloses a valid defence in light of reliance on repealed legislation.
  2. 2 Whether the reference to the Road Traffic Act of 1989 and its regulations invalidates the defence.
  3. 3 Whether the exception procedure was correctly used and whether the exception was timeously raised.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent's plea, although referencing repealed legislation, did not fail to disclose a defence. The plea must be read as a whole, and it was clear that the respondent's real defence was that the insured vehicle exceeded the statutory maximum mass, thereby breaching the roadworthiness requirements under the applicable replacement statute. The applicants' exception was found to be late and improperly directed at the amended plea, when the relevant allegations were already present in the original plea. The reference to the repealed Act rendered the plea vague or confusing, not invalid, and the applicants should have sought clarification under Rule 23(1) rather than...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' exception to the respondent's plea is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the exception.