Santam Insurance Company Ltd. v Williams (627/90) [1992] ZASCA 1; 1992 (2) SA 273 (AD); (16 January 1992)

Santam Insurance Company Ltd. v Williams (627/90) [1992] ZASCA 1; 1992 (2) SA 273 (AD); (16 January 1992)

Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 must be interpreted to allow for the suspension of prescription for a further period of 90 days upon delivery of a second or subsequent proper offer of settlement. The statutory language does not preclude multiple suspensions, and a liberal construction is justified to protect claimants and facilitate settlement. The second offer made by the appellant suspended prescription for an additional 90 days, and the respondent's claim had not prescribed when summons was served.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 1
Parties
Appellant: Santam Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Walter Ernest Williams
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 1992
Case Number
627/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Durban and Coast Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
CORBETT, HEFER, F H GROSSKOPF
Legal Topics
Prescription of Claims, Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, Suspension of Prescription, Interpretation of Statute
Civil Procedure Prescription of Claims Motor Vehicle Accident Fund Suspension of Prescription Interpretation of Statute

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santam Insurance Company Limited

Appellant

Walter Ernest Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Durban and Coast Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delivery of a second offer of settlement under section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 suspends prescription for a fresh period of 90 days.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claim for damages had become prescribed prior to service of summons.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 must be interpreted to allow for the suspension of prescription for a further period of 90 days upon delivery of a second or subsequent proper offer of settlement. The statutory language does not preclude multiple suspensions, and a liberal construction is justified to protect claimants and facilitate settlement. The second offer made by the appellant suspended prescription for an additional 90 days, and the respondent's claim had not prescribed when summons was served.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.