South Africa Case Law

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (84274/2016)

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (84274/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 845 (27 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

84274/2016

Judge

Strijdom

The court found that Rand Mutual Assurance, having compensated the plaintiff for past hospital and medical expenses under the commuting journey policy, is entitled to claim reimbursement from the Road Accident Fund in the plaintiff's name by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. The court dismissed the defendant's special pleas regarding locus standi and the non-recoverability of claims under the commuting journey policy. The amount awarded for past hospital and medical expenses must be paid to Rand Mutual Assurance as undertaken by the plaintiff. The second point in limine was dismissed and…

Source excerpt

• Subrogation
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
• Past Medical Expenses
• Locus Standi
• Commuting Journey Policy

Van Tonder v Road Accident Fund (1736/2020; 9773/2021)

Van Tonder v Road Accident Fund (1736/2020; 9773/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 305 (1 December 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1736/2020; 9773/2021

Judge

J Cloete

The court held that the Road Accident Fund remains liable to compensate claimants for past medical expenses, even where those expenses have already been paid by private medical aid schemes. The contractual obligation of claimants to reimburse their medical aid upon recovery from the RAF does not fall within the exclusionary provisions of section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act, as such agreements are not champertous and do not undermine the statutory purpose. The RAF's reliance on regulations 7 and 8 of the Medical Schemes Act to preclude subrogation and bar recovery was rejected, as there is no auth…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Aid Subrogation
• Past Medical Expenses
• Double Compensation
• Statutory Exclusion
• Punitive Costs

Xstrata Coal South Africa (Pty) Limited t/a Xstrata Coal South Africa v Sandvik Mining and Construction RSA (Pty) Ltd and Others (44618/2011)

Xstrata Coal South Africa (Pty) Limited t/a Xstrata Coal South Africa v Sandvik Mining and Construction RSA (Pty) Ltd and Others (44618/2011) [2013] ZAGPJHC 315 (10 December 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

44618/2011

Judge

Weiner

The court held that the first exception, relating to the interpretation of Clause B of the PI Policy, could not be decided at the exception stage due to ambiguity in the definition of 'Insured' and the scope of indemnity. The inclusion of multiple insured entities and the reference to losses caused by parties appointed by the insured introduced interpretive uncertainty. The second exception was upheld because the plaintiff failed to plead the jurisdictional pre-requisites for claiming under Clause B, specifically prior written notice and insurer consent, or sufficient detail regarding the ins…

Source excerpt

• Professional Indemnity Policy
• Exception Procedure
• Contractual Interpretation
• Policy Exclusions
• Pleading Requirements

Cromhout v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, Santam Beperk v Williams (159/96, 445/96)

Cromhout v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, Santam Beperk v Williams (159/96, 445/96) [1997] ZASCA 77; [1997] 4 All SA 491 (A) (26 September 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

159/96, 445/96

Judges

Smalberger, Howie, Olivier, Zulman, Streicher

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1991 amendment to article 47 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund agreement did not operate retroactively. The amendment created a new right for pedestrian workmen to claim third party compensation without the previous statutory limitation, but this right only applied to accidents occurring after the effective date of the amendment. The Court found no express or implied intention in the language of the amendment to apply it to claims arising before 1 November 1991. Applying the general presumption against retroactivity, the Court concluded…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Interpretation
• Retroactivity Of Legislation
• Workmens Compensation
• Third Party Liability
• Motor Vehicle Accident Fund

Standard General Insurance Company Ltd. v Verdun Estates (Pty) Ltd. (524/88)

Standard General Insurance Company Ltd. v Verdun Estates (Pty) Ltd. (524/88) [1990] ZASCA 27; 1990 (2) SA 693 (AD); (26 March 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

524/88

Judges

Hoexter, Nestadt, Milne, Friedman, Goldstone

The court held that the insurer's statutory right of recourse under section 28 of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act only arises if the payment to the third party was made under section 21 or 26 of the Act. In this case, the underlying claim by Saayman against the insurer had prescribed before payment was made, as the respondents were not parties to the undertaking not to plead prescription and were not advised of it. The payment was therefore not made under section 21 of the Act, but pursuant to a separate agreement. As a result, the insurer's statutory right of recourse did not aris…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
• Statutory Right Of Recourse
• Prescription
• Settlement Without Summons

Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd. (222/88)

Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd. (222/88) [1989] ZASCA 109 (21 September 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

222/88

Judges

Joubert, Botha, Vivier, Eksteen, Nicholas

The court held that section 24(2) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act applies only to the statutory prescription period, not a privately extended one.

• Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
• Prescription Of Claims
• Waiver Of Prescription
• Leave To Serve Process
• Insurance-law
• Prescription

President Insurance Company Ltd. v Retsos (116/87)

President Insurance Company Ltd. v Retsos (116/87) [1987] ZASCA 113; [1988] 1 All SA 344 (A) (29 September 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

116/87

Judges

Rabie, Corbett, Botha, Nestadt, Boshoff

The court held that negligent omission by a legal secretary and inadequate attorney supervision were not “special circumstances” to excuse prescription under the Act.

• Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
• Prescription Of Claims
• Special Circumstances
• Attorney Negligence
• Prescription-of-claims
• Special-circumstances

President Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Lategan (152/85)

President Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Lategan (152/85) [1986] ZASCA 51 (19 May 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

152/85

Judges

Trengove, Hoexter, Smalberger

The court held that the insurer failed to prove the respondent had not reported the accident or supplied required details under section 20(1). Appeal dismissed.

• Motor Vehicle Insurance
• Statutory Reporting Obligations
• Burden Of Proof
• Third Party Liability
• Motor-vehicle-insurance
• Statutory-reporting-obligations

Constantia Insurance Company Ltd. v Hearne (27/86)

Constantia Insurance Company Ltd. v Hearne (27/86) [1986] ZASCA 28 (25 March 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

27/86

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Hoexter, Hefer, Nestadt

The court held that the limitation of liability under section 22(2)(a) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act is individual, not collective. The wording 'to compensate a third party' in the singular must be given its literal meaning, limiting the insurer's liability to each third party separately. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the limitation should be collective, finding no justification for departing from the plain meaning of the statute. The court further held that any ambiguity in limitation provisions must be resolved in favour of third parties, consistent with t…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
• Limitation Of Liability
• Statutory Interpretation

South African Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. v Bavuma (429/83)

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

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

429/83

Judges

Corbett, Miller, Nicholas, Eloff, Vivier

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.

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act
• Workmens Compensation Act
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights
• Amendment Of Pleadings