Zurich Insurance Company South Africa Limited v Gauteng Provincial Government (2015/07148) [2021] ZAGPJHC 385 (15 June 2021)
The court found that the three issues raised by the applicant—practical enforceability of the order, prescription of the claim, and the scope of the insured property—are sufficiently arguable that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZAGPJHC 385
- Parties
- Applicant: Zurich Insurance Company South Africa Limited; Respondent: Gauteng Provincial Government
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2015/07148
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Judgment Delivered on 2 March 2021
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted on the specified issues.
- Judges
- Wepener
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Prescription, Insurance Contracts, Enforceability of Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Zurich Insurance Company South Africa Limited
Applicant
Gauteng Provincial Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Judgment Delivered on 2 March 2021
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order issued by the court is capable of practical enforcement.
- 2 Whether the respondent’s claim had become prescribed.
- 3 Whether the rock surrounding the void formed part of the property insured.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the three issues raised by the applicant—practical enforceability of the order, prescription of the claim, and the scope of the insured property—are sufficiently arguable that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted on these issues.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted on the specified issues.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted on the three identified issues.
- The applicant must ensure the record of appeal is suitably truncated to omit irrelevant parts.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: 2015/07148
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
In the matter between:
ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY
SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
Applicant
And
GAUTENG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Respondent
Coram: Wepener J
Date of hearing: 15 June 2021
Date of judgment: 15 June 2021
JUDGMENT
Wepener, J:
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal a judgment delivered by me on 2 March 2021. The notice of application for leave to appeal sets out a large number of issues. These were reduced to three during argument namely: that the order issued by me is incapable of practical enforcement and secondly; that the claim had become prescribed and thirdly; that the rock surrounding the tunnel, although part of the works, did not form part of the property insured.
[2] The respondent’s resisted all three grounds. However, I am of the view that another court may, reasonably, come to a different conclusion on these three issues.
[3] I consequently grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the following issues:
1. Whether the order issued by this court is capable of practical enforcement;
2. Whether the respondent’s claim had become prescribed;
3. Whether the rock surrounding the void formed part of the property insured.
[4] I order that the applicant is to ensure that the record of appeal is suitably truncated in order to omit those parts of the record that will not have a bearing on the issues to be considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[5] The Costs of the application for leave to appeal are to be costs in the appeal.
W.L. Wepener
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicant: C.D.A. Loxton SC with D. Smith
Attorney for Applicant: Knowles Husain Lindsey Incorporated Ref: Mr. P. Ferreira
Counsel for the Respondent: A. Subel SC with A.C. Botha SC
Attorney for the Respondent: Werksmans Attorneys Ref: Mr. D. Willans