Santam Ltd. v Sayed (470/96) [1998] ZASCA 85; [1998] 4 All SA 564 (A) (28 September 1998)

Santam Ltd. v Sayed (470/96) [1998] ZASCA 85; [1998] 4 All SA 564 (A) (28 September 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'without prejudice' offers made by the appellant did constitute offers of settlement under section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, thereby suspending prescription for 90 days. However, the statutory prescriptive period expired at the end of February 1993, and subsequent extensions granted by the appellant were contractual, not statutory, and did not incorporate a further 90-day suspension upon the making of a second offer. The respondent failed to establish a tacit term that a 90-day suspension would apply to the contractual extension period, nor did the evidence support estoppel. The special plea of prescription was therefore upheld, and...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 85
Parties
Appellant: Santam Limited; Respondent: Mohamed Naeem Sayed
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1998
Case Number
470/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Durban and Coast Local Division; Prescription Special Plea Decided as Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed; special plea of prescription upheld; respondent's claim prescribed.
Judges
Van Heerden, Howie, Plewman, Farlam, Ngoepe
Legal Topics
Prescription, Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, Special Plea, Settlement Offer, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Prescription Motor Vehicle Accidents Act Special Plea Settlement Offer Estoppel

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santam Limited

Appellant

Mohamed Naeem Sayed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Durban and Coast Local Division; Prescription Special Plea Decided as Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 'without prejudice' offer constitutes an offer of settlement under section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, thereby suspending prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the extensions granted by the appellant altered the statutory prescriptive period or created a contractual prescription period.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established a tacit term or estoppel preventing the appellant from raising prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'without prejudice' offers made by the appellant did constitute offers of settlement under section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, thereby suspending prescription for 90 days. However, the statutory prescriptive period expired at the end of February 1993, and subsequent extensions granted by the appellant were contractual, not statutory, and did not incorporate a further 90-day suspension upon the making of a second offer. The respondent failed to establish a tacit term that a 90-day suspension would apply to the contractual extension period, nor did the evidence support estoppel. The special plea of prescription was therefore upheld, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; special plea of prescription upheld; respondent's claim prescribed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed, with costs.
  • The order of the Court below is set aside and substituted with: 'The special plea of prescription is upheld, with costs.'