South Africa Case Law

Ngqeleni v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited (EL933/2022)

Ngqeleni v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited (EL933/2022) [2024] ZAECELLC 44 (14 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL933/2022

Judge

B B Brody

The court found that the insurance policy's exclusion for defective workmanship must be read in the context of the plaintiff's knowledge. The expert evidence established that the plaintiff could not have known about the defective workmanship prior to purchasing the property. Therefore, the exclusion did not apply, and the incident was an insured peril under the policy. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff should have foreseen the defect was unsupported by the facts and expert opinion. The court held that both issues for determination must be answered in favour of the plaintiff, resulti…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Exclusion Clauses
• Foreseeability
• Burden Of Proof

Consortium For Refugees and Migrants in South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (30123/2011)

Consortium For Refugees and Migrants in South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (30123/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 753 (26 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30123/2011

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court dismissed a review of refugee status granted to Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, holding the applicant failed to show he should be excluded under the Refugees Act.

• Refugees Act
• Nonrefoulement
• Confidentiality Of Asylum Applications
• Locus Standi
• Exclusion Clauses
• Judicial Review

Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Ltd v Ingram NO and Others (CA 119/2007)

Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Ltd v Ingram NO and Others (CA 119/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 175; 2009 (6) SA 53 (E) (2 October 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA 119/2007

Judges

D Chetty, J Froneman, N Dambuza

The court held that an insurance exclusion for damage caused directly or indirectly by weather conditions applied, and the broker was liable for failing to secure adequate cover.

• Insurance Contracts
• Exclusion Clauses
• Broker Negligence
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Insurance-contracts
• Exclusion-clauses

Freshgold SA Exports (Pty) Ltd v Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH and Co (AC166/03)

Freshgold SA Exports (Pty) Ltd v Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH and Co (AC166/03) [2005] ZAWCHC 97 (15 December 2005)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC166/2003

Judge

Veldhuizen

The court held that the shipper was bound by the carrier’s standard bill of lading terms, including exclusion and transfer clauses, and dismissed the claim.

• Bill Of Lading Terms
• Carrier Liability
• Oral Contract
• Standard Terms
• Exclusion Clauses
• Bill-of-lading-terms

Lloyds of London Underwriting Syndicates 969, 48, 1183 and 2183 v Skilya Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (316/2002)

Lloyds of London Underwriting Syndicates 969, 48, 1183 and 2183 v Skilya Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (316/2002) [2003] ZASCA 112; [2004] 1 All SA 386 (SCA); 2004 (2) SA 276 (SCA) (30 September 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

316/2002

Judges

Scott, Zulman, Mthiyane, Brand, Conradie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an aircraft insurance exclusion for illegal use was incorporated into the war risks policy and barred indemnity.

• Insurance Contract Interpretation
• Exclusion Clauses
• Illegal Purpose
• Aviation Insurance
• Aviation-insurance
• Insurance-contract-interpretation

Union Spinning Mills (Pty) Ltd v Paltex Dye House (Pty) Ltd and Another (453/2000)

Union Spinning Mills (Pty) Ltd v Paltex Dye House (Pty) Ltd and Another (453/2000) [2002] ZASCA 9; 2002 (4) SA 408 (SCA) (22 March 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

453/2000

Judges

Smalberger, Howie, Zulman, Navsa, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that its standard terms and conditions governed the contractual relationship with the defendants. The evidence showed that the plaintiff's confirmation documents, containing the standard terms, were routinely posted to customers and that the defendants likely received them. The court held that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to bring the terms to the defendants' attention, and the type of document was such that a reasonable purchaser would expect to find standard terms and conditions.…

Source excerpt

• Standard Terms Of Contract
• Onus Of Proof
• Exclusion Clauses
• Sale Of Goods

Fedgen Insurance Ltd. v Leyds (475/93)

Fedgen Insurance Ltd. v Leyds (475/93) [1995] ZASCA 20; 1995 (3) SA 33 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 357 (A) (27 March 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

475/93

Judges

Hefer, Smalberger, FH Grosskopf, Nienaber, Van den Heever

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurance policy provided comprehensive cover for loss or damage, including theft, without limitation as to the use of the vehicle at the time of theft. The exclusionary clause in the policy applied only to 'accidents', which, in its ordinary meaning and context, did not include theft, as theft is an intentional act. Any ambiguity in the policy wording was resolved against Fedgen as the drafter. Therefore, Fedgen was liable to indemnify Leyds for the theft of the Mercedes. However, the policy's Table of Deductibles entitled Fedgen to deduct 10% of the…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Exclusion Clauses
• Contra Proferentem
• Deductibles
• Theft Claims