Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2022] ZAGPJHC 918

Transnet SOC Limited v Santam Limited (30445/2014)

Transnet SOC Limited v Santam Limited (30445/2014) [2022] ZAGPJHC 918 (9 November 2022)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
30445/2014
Judge
Mashile

The court held that the insurance contract indemnifies Transnet only for liability to pay compensation, not for statutory obligations to rehabilitate pollution under NEMA absent a third-party claim. The wording of the indemnity clause is narrower than in Verulam Fuel Distributors and does not extend to statutory reimbursement. The pollution was not caused by a 'sudden, unintended and unexpected happening' as required by the policy, since the fuel escape was gradual and controlled. Although Santam's conduct over three years could be interpreted as a waiver of its right to rely on late notice a…

Source excerpt

  • Insurance Contract Interpretation
  • Pollution Liability
  • Statutory Obligation Under Nema
  • Policy Exclusions
  • Waiver Of Rights
  • Notice Requirements
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2018] ZAECGHC 30

Ponderosa Pine Trading 31 CC v Santam Limited (4108/2013)

Ponderosa Pine Trading 31 CC v Santam Limited (4108/2013) [2018] ZAECGHC 30 (26 April 2018)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
4108/2013
Judge
Brooks

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required to rely on the qualification to the exclusion clause in the insurance policy. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff's sole member was sufficiently knowledgeable about trucks and licensing requirements, making his claimed ignorance improbable. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not establish that procedures were in place within its business to ensure only licensed drivers operated insured vehicles. The absence of such procedures and the sole member's awareness of the truck's true GVM meant the exclusion applie…

Source excerpt

  • Insurance Contracts
  • Policy Exclusions
  • Onus Of Proof
  • Interpretation Of Contracts
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2016] ZAGPPHC 823

Tarring Corporation CC v New National Assurance Company Limited (30226/2014)

Tarring Corporation CC v New National Assurance Company Limited (30226/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 823 (9 September 2016)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
30226/2014
Judge
Du Plessis

The court found that the theft of the Uni-Loader did not fall within the policy exclusion for absconsion, as interpreted restrictively and in context with the general exceptions. The Plaintiff did not act recklessly or with willful negligence, and took reasonable precautions in the circumstances, including verifying documents and securing the site. The Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff hired out the equipment or breached the relevant policy conditions. Notice of claim was given timeously to the broker and the police, and the Defendant suffered no prejudice in its investigation. The…

Source excerpt

  • Insurance Contract Interpretation
  • Policy Exclusions
  • Reasonable Precautions
  • Absconsion Clause
  • Notice Of Claim
  • Jurisdiction And Service
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2013] ZAGPJHC 315

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
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.