Jordaan v Liberty Life Ltd (3890/2007) [2011] ZAFSHC 217 (29 July 2011)

Jordaan v Liberty Life Ltd (3890/2007) [2011] ZAFSHC 217 (29 July 2011)

The court found that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff signed the first cession document; the signature was determined to be a forgery based on expert evidence and the circumstances surrounding the document's registration. The second cession in favour of Opperman was subject to a suspensive condition—the plaintiff's release from suretyship—which was never fulfilled, and in any event, was never registered with the defendant, rendering it invalid. The policy was not an out-and-out 'buy and sell' policy, and the plaintiff remained the owner and beneficiary at the time of the deceased's death. The defendant was not entitled to pay the proceeds to the deceased's estate and is...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 217
Parties
Plaintiff: Coert Retief Jordaan; Defendant: Liberty Life Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Case Number
3890/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; special plea dismissed; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff the policy proceeds plus interest and costs.
Judges
M B Molemela
Legal Topics
Insurance Policy Cession, Locus Standi, Suretyship Liability, Forgery of Signature, Buy and Sell Agreement
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insurance Policy Cession Locus Standi Suretyship Liability Forgery of Signature Buy and Sell Agreement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coert Retief Jordaan

Plaintiff

Liberty Life Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff ceded his rights in the insurance policy to the deceased during August 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff ceded his rights in the policy to Opperman in October 2003.
  3. 3 Whether the signature on the first cession document is a forgery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff signed the first cession document; the signature was determined to be a forgery based on expert evidence and the circumstances surrounding the document's registration. The second cession in favour of Opperman was subject to a suspensive condition—the plaintiff's release from suretyship—which was never fulfilled, and in any event, was never registered with the defendant, rendering it invalid. The policy was not an out-and-out 'buy and sell' policy, and the plaintiff remained the owner and beneficiary at the time of the deceased's death. The defendant was not entitled to pay the proceeds to the deceased's estate and is...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; special plea dismissed; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff the policy proceeds plus interest and costs.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R2,251,017.00 together with interest thereon calculated from 31 December 2005.