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
Road Accident Fund v Sheriff, Cape Town West and Others (1065/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 429 (18 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed RAF’s urgent bid to stay execution of a settlement order pending Mudawo and a possible rescission application.
Mathaba v Public Health and Social Development Sectorial Bargainig Council (PHSDSBC) and Others (JR1814/2021) [2024] ZALCJHB 493 (5 December 2024)
Labour Court review of an arbitration award upheld the dismissal of a hospital CEO for irregular commuted overtime claims, finding no reviewable irregularity.
Care Cure (Pty) Ltd v Landman (A134/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 130 (10 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a settlement agreement, finding no proven misrepresentation and holding that the counterclaim had prescribed.
Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi (534/2022) [2023] ZASCA 101 (14 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 5.13 of the Discovery policy is clear and unambiguous: any fraudulent claim, even if only part of the claim is fraudulent, entitles the insurer to cancel the policy retrospectively from the incident date and to reclaim all amounts paid, including those for genuine components. The respondent forfeited all benefits under the policy when he submitted a partly fraudulent claim. The argument that accrued rights to genuine claims survive cancellation was rejected, as it would render the forfeiture clause nugatory and undermine its purpose of deterring fr…
Source excerpt
Maharaj N.O v Discovery Life Limited (8713/2015) [2022] ZAKZDHC 52 (2 December 2022)
The court found that the second plaintiff was diagnosed and treated for major depression in 2010 and 2012 and failed to disclose this material information when submitting service alteration requests for amendments to insurance policies 312 and 160. Applying section 59(1) of the Long Term Insurance Act and the objective test for materiality, the court held that a reasonable, prudent person would have disclosed such diagnoses, as they were likely to materially affect the assessment of risk. The defendant was therefore entitled to repudiate the amendments to the policies, rendering all amending…
Source excerpt
Special Investigating Unit and Another v RI Mako Trading and Projects and Another (NW02/2020) [2022] ZAST 25 (20 October 2022)
The Tribunal found that the respondents submitted invoices with inflated kilometres for learner scholar transport services, resulting in unjust enrichment and fraud. The respondents did not dispute the excess kilometres claimed, nor did they provide evidence of proper verification or approval by the Department. The Tribunal held that prescription had not run, as the SIU was only authorised to investigate in January 2018 and proceedings were instituted within the three-year period. The application procedure was deemed appropriate, and minor defects in commissioning affidavits were not prejudic…
Source excerpt
Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi (85613/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 198 (14 March 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The forfeiture clause in the insurance contract, while explicit, could not operate to retrospectively forfeit valid claims that had already accrued and been settled prior to the fraudulent breach. Such retrospective forfeiture is punitive and constitutes a penalty, thereby invoking the Conventional Penalties Act. The court considered the relevant authorities and principles, concluding that only the fraudulent portion of the claim was subject to forfeiture. The applicant's arguments regarding th…
Source excerpt
Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi (85613/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 145 (8 September 2021)
The court held that the insurance policy contained an express forfeiture clause, but its application must be interpreted in light of established principles and the intention of the parties. The fraudulent claim related to emergency accommodation arose from a single insured incident, and the right to claim valid benefits had accrued prior to the breach. Applying the authorities, the court found that forfeiture of valid claims would constitute a disproportionate penalty and was not justified by the policy wording or the prejudice suffered by the insurer. Only the amounts paid on the fraudulent…
Source excerpt
Mulaudzi v Platinum Health Medical Scheme (6860/2018) [2021] ZALMPPHC 16 (4 May 2021)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35(14) application to compel pre-plea document disclosure, finding the applicant could plead using information already provided.
Renasa Insurance Company Limited v Watson and Another (32/2014) [2016] ZASCA 13 (11 March 2016)
Insurer failed to prove arson or breach of a prevention-of-loss clause; appeal dismissed with costs.
Explore more
