South African Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. v Bavuma (429/83) [1985] ZASCA 7; [1985] 2 All SA 190 (A) (28 March 1985)

South African Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. v Bavuma (429/83) [1985] ZASCA 7; [1985] 2 All SA 190 (A) (28 March 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 8(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 30 of 1941 was enacted solely for the benefit of the Commissioner, and not for public interest or policy. The Commissioner is entitled to waive compliance with the section. In this case, the Commissioner's correspondence constituted a waiver of the requirement for prior written consent. Therefore, the respondent was excused from compliance with section 8(5) and the amendment to the particulars of claim was properly granted. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: South African Eagle Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Lennox Sipho Bavuma
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 1985
Case Number
429/83
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Granting of Amendment to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Miller, Nicholas, Eloff, Vivier
Legal Topics
Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Workmens Compensation Act, Waiver of Statutory Rights, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act Workmens Compensation Act Waiver of Statutory Rights Amendment of Pleadings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Eagle Insurance Company Limited

Appellant

Lennox Sipho Bavuma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Granting of Amendment to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compliance with section 8(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 30 of 1941 is a condition precedent to instituting action under the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner may waive compliance with section 8(5) and whether such waiver was effected in this case.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment to the particulars of claim was properly granted to allow reference to subsequent events.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 8(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 30 of 1941 was enacted solely for the benefit of the Commissioner, and not for public interest or policy. The Commissioner is entitled to waive compliance with the section. In this case, the Commissioner's correspondence constituted a waiver of the requirement for prior written consent. Therefore, the respondent was excused from compliance with section 8(5) and the amendment to the particulars of claim was properly granted. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.