Mehrez and Another v Ndwandwe (65685/13) [2017] ZAGPPHC 405 (23 March 2017)

Mehrez and Another v Ndwandwe (65685/13) [2017] ZAGPPHC 405 (23 March 2017)

The court found that the plaintiffs are not party to the insurance agreement between the defendant and his insurer and therefore have no obligation to join the insurer as a party to the proceedings. The obligation to join the insurer, if any, rests solely with the defendant. The court relied on authoritative insurance law commentary and case law, which establish that subrogation and contractual obligations between insurer and insured do not extend to third parties such as the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's special plea was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 405
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohammed Tawfir Mohammed Mehrez; Plaintiff: Trudie Mehrez; Defendant: Sifiso Ndwandwe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Case Number
65685/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea
Outcome
Defendant's special plea is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Insurance Subrogation, Third Party Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Joinder of Parties Insurance Subrogation Third Party Liability

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

Parties

Mohammed Tawfir Mohammed Mehrez

Plaintiff

Trudie Mehrez

Plaintiff

Sifiso Ndwandwe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are obliged to join the defendant's insurer as a party to the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the insurance agreement between the defendant and his insurer creates any obligation for the plaintiffs to join the insurer.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's special plea regarding non-joinder of the insurer should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs are not party to the insurance agreement between the defendant and his insurer and therefore have no obligation to join the insurer as a party to the proceedings. The obligation to join the insurer, if any, rests solely with the defendant. The court relied on authoritative insurance law commentary and case law, which establish that subrogation and contractual obligations between insurer and insured do not extend to third parties such as the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's special plea was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Defendant's special plea is dismissed.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the special plea.