Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Delpaul v Hollard Life Assurance Co Ltd (18301/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 745 (30 June 2023)
The High Court held that the insurance policy paid per event, not per group, and awarded the plaintiff the unpaid balance of the benefit amount plus interest and costs.
Molefe v Miway Insurance Company Ltd [2023] ZAGPPHC 489; A189/2022 (20 June 2023)
Appeal upheld where the insurer failed to prove material prejudice from alleged dishonesty in a stolen-vehicle claim. The insured’s claim was reinstated on the merits.
Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited (6499/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 160; [2021] 1 All SA 195 (WCC) (17 November 2020)
The Court held that the infectious diseases extension clause in the applicants' business interruption policies covered losses occasioned by the occurrence of Covid-19 within 40 kilometres of the insured premises. The government response, including lockdown, was found to be inextricably linked to the notifiable disease and formed part of the insured peril. Both factual and legal causation were established, as the applicants' losses would not have occurred but for the local outbreak and the government response. The Court rejected Santam's argument that the indemnity period was limited to 3 mont…
Source excerpt
Centriq Insurance Company Limited v Oosthuizen and Another (237/2018) [2019] ZASCA 11; 2019 (3) SA 387 (SCA) (14 March 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Centriq’s exclusion clause did not bar cover for negligent financial advice causing an unsafe investment loss.
Watson and Another v Renasa Insurance Company Limited (14664/2012) [2019] ZAWCHC 7; [2019] 2 All SA 280 (WCC); 2019 (3) SA 593 (WCC) (14 February 2019)
The court found that the plaintiff's inability to reinstate the damaged machinery was a direct result of the defendant insurer's persistent refusal to pay or tender any amount under the policy, including the indemnity value. The insurer's conduct placed the plaintiff in an untenable financial position, making reinstatement impossible despite his genuine and continuing intention to do so. The court held that the reinstatement value conditions (RVC) clause remained applicable, and the defendant could not rely on the plaintiff's inability to reinstate as a defence, especially where the insurer f…
Source excerpt
M J Repapis Enterprises CC t/a Inyama Rama Butchery v Red Alert (Pty) Ltd (1879/2014) [2018] ZAECGHC 42 (24 May 2018)
The court found that the defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to contact the second keyholder, Mr. Repapis, after being unable to reach the first, Mr. Sijadu, following an alarm activation. The evidence established that defendant's employees were aware of the contractual requirement and that all alarms were to be treated as emergencies. The defendant's omission constituted negligence and a breach of contract, which caused the plaintiff's loss. The court held that the indemnity clause (clause 4.2.2) did not exclude liability for negligence, and that the contradictory blank…
Source excerpt
Entsha Henra CC v Sol Plaatje Municipality and Another (410/2015) [2017] ZANCHC 61 (20 October 2017)
The court held that the contract did not make adjudication the exclusive dispute process, so the adjudicator’s decision was not final against court review.
Mechanised Equipment Sales (Pty) Limited v Lion of Africa Insurance Company Limited (32874/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 757 (14 August 2015)
The High Court held that a bespoke insurance cover for mobile cranes prevailed over a conflicting exclusion clause, and ordered indemnity, interest and costs.
Jerrier v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited (AR 4160/2010) [2015] ZAKZPHC 34; 2015 (5) SA 433 (KZP); [2015] 3 All SA 701 (KZP) (7 July 2015)
An insurer could not avoid a later collision claim because the insured failed to report earlier incidents he never intended to claim for.
Revertex Chemicals (Pty) Ltd v Climax Lift Hire (Pty) Ltd (369/2002) [2012] ZAKZPHC 36 (1 June 2012)
The court held that the defendant was entitled to cancel the agreement under clause 5.1 due to objectively unsatisfactory and inefficient service levels provided by the plaintiff, as established by expert evidence and corroborated by service records. The contract did not require prior notice to remedy, and the plaintiff, as the drafter, could have stipulated such a requirement if desired. The defendant exercised its right to cancel within a reasonable time after receiving expert confirmation. The plaintiff failed to prove its quantum of damages, as its calculation did not account for mitigati…
Source excerpt
Explore more
