Muller v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (1162/2015) [2016] ZASCA 149 (30 September 2016)

Muller v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (1162/2015) [2016] ZASCA 149 (30 September 2016)

The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal was refused due to extreme and unexplained delays in compliance with court rules, and the absence of reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The debt under the life insurance policies became due when the insured died and Muller had knowledge of both the death and the existence of the policies, which occurred in September 2006. Prescription ran from that date and expired in September 2009, well before proceedings were instituted in May 2011. The new rule under the Long-Term Insurance Act, effective from January 2011, does not apply retrospectively and cannot revive a debt already prescribed. Sanlam’s conduct and...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 149
Parties
Appellant: Pieter Johannes Muller; Respondent: Sanlam Life Insurance Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2016
Case Number
1162/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Appeal; Appeal Against Prescription Finding
Outcome
Application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal dismissed; appeal struck from the roll; costs awarded to respondent.
Judges
Lewis, Seriti, Willis, Fourie, Potterill
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Life Insurance Contracts, Condonation, Estoppel, Waiver, Reciprocal Obligations
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Life Insurance Contracts Condonation Estoppel Waiver Reciprocal Obligations

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Johannes Muller

Appellant

Sanlam Life Insurance Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Appeal; Appeal Against Prescription Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the debt under the life insurance policies had prescribed before the institution of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the new rule under the Long-Term Insurance Act affects the running of prescription retrospectively.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal was refused due to extreme and unexplained delays in compliance with court rules, and the absence of reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The debt under the life insurance policies became due when the insured died and Muller had knowledge of both the death and the existence of the policies, which occurred in September 2006. Prescription ran from that date and expired in September 2009, well before proceedings were instituted in May 2011. The new rule under the Long-Term Insurance Act, effective from January 2011, does not apply retrospectively and cannot revive a debt already prescribed. Sanlam’s conduct and...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal dismissed; appeal struck from the roll; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal on the roll is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal is struck from the roll.