Lieberman v Santam Ltd (168/98) [2000] ZASCA 173 (29 May 2000)

Lieberman v Santam Ltd (168/98) [2000] ZASCA 173 (29 May 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the agreement between the appellant and respondent created a new contractual obligation to pay 50% of the agreed or proved damages in respect of Carter-Smith's negligence. This obligation existed independently of any previous obligation under the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act. The appellant's cause of action was based on this agreement, not the Act, and was governed by the Prescription Act. Since the claim had not become prescribed under the Prescription Act by the time summons was served, the special plea of prescription was misdirected and should not have been upheld. The agreement provided a contractual basis for the claim, and...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 173
Parties
Appellant: David Israel Lieberman; Respondent: Santam Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2000
Case Number
168/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment Upholding a Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the special plea of prescription with costs.
Judges
Vivier, Marais, Zulman, Streicher, Farlam
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Novation, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims, Contractual Settlement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Novation Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Contractual Settlement

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Israel Lieberman

Appellant

Santam Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Judgment Upholding a Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim was governed by the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act or by a new agreement between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the special plea of prescription under the Act was correctly upheld.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement constituted a novation or compromise of the original statutory claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the agreement between the appellant and respondent created a new contractual obligation to pay 50% of the agreed or proved damages in respect of Carter-Smith's negligence. This obligation existed independently of any previous obligation under the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act. The appellant's cause of action was based on this agreement, not the Act, and was governed by the Prescription Act. Since the claim had not become prescribed under the Prescription Act by the time summons was served, the special plea of prescription was misdirected and should not have been upheld. The agreement provided a contractual basis for the claim, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the special plea of prescription with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.