Reyneke v Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd (108/2012) [2013] ZAECGHC 47 (23 May 2013)

Reyneke v Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd (108/2012) [2013] ZAECGHC 47 (23 May 2013)

The court found that the indemnity clause was clear and unambiguous in excluding respondent's liability for any loss or damages, including those arising from negligence, in connection with the conveyance of passengers. The appellant had signed the passenger manifest, thereby assenting to the terms and conditions, and respondent had taken reasonable steps to bring the disclaimer to her attention. The omission of the specific words 'negligent driving' did not render the disclaimer ambiguous, as the language encompassed all forms of negligence related to the conveyance of passengers. The court further held that there was no statutory requirement for passenger liability insurance at the time...

Citation
[2013] ZAECGHC 47
Parties
Appellant: Maria Jacoba Reyneke; Respondent: Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
108/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Decision on Special Plea Regarding Enforceability of Indemnity Clause
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable.
Judges
J.D. Pickering, N. Dambuza, C.K. Mey
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clause, Contractual Exclusion of Liability, Quasi Mutual Assent, Contra Proferens Rule, Public Policy, Passenger Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Commercial and Corporate Indemnity Clause Contractual Exclusion of Liability Quasi Mutual Assent Contra Proferens Rule Public Policy +1 more

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

Parties

Maria Jacoba Reyneke

Appellant

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Decision on Special Plea Regarding Enforceability of Indemnity Clause

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity clause in the contract excluded respondent's liability for injuries sustained by appellant due to negligent driving.
  2. 2 Whether the disclaimer was ambiguous and should be interpreted contra proferens.
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of the disclaimer was contrary to public policy given the nature of respondent's business and insurance requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the indemnity clause was clear and unambiguous in excluding respondent's liability for any loss or damages, including those arising from negligence, in connection with the conveyance of passengers. The appellant had signed the passenger manifest, thereby assenting to the terms and conditions, and respondent had taken reasonable steps to bring the disclaimer to her attention. The omission of the specific words 'negligent driving' did not render the disclaimer ambiguous, as the language encompassed all forms of negligence related to the conveyance of passengers. The court further held that there was no statutory requirement for passenger liability insurance at the time...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where two counsel were employed.