South Africa Case Law

Drakenstein Municipality v Guardrisk Allied Products and Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (2020/12145)

Drakenstein Municipality v Guardrisk Allied Products and Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (2020/12145) [2025] ZAGPJHC 234 (11 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/12145

Judge

D J Wilson

The court allowed Drakenstein Municipality to amend its replication to argue that a partially repudiated insurance claim was not ‘rejected’ for the policy time bar.

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Time Bar Clauses
• Leave To Amend
• Repudiation Of Claims
• Insurance-policy-interpretation
• Time-bar-clauses

Shezi v Santam Limited (1109/2023)

Shezi v Santam Limited (1109/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 43 (16 February 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1109/2023

Judge

Mhlambi

The High Court upheld an exception to an insured plaintiff’s particulars of claim because they did not plead compliance with clear contractual time limits.

• Exception To Pleadings
• Insurance Contract
• Cause Of Action
• Time Bar Clauses
• Exception-to-pleadings
• Insurance-contract

Twenty Third Century Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v SAP African Region (Pty) Ltd (2020/40953)

Twenty Third Century Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v SAP African Region (Pty) Ltd (2020/40953) [2022] ZAGPJHC 333 (16 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/40953

Judge

N Manoim

The court held that the exclusion of liability and time bar clauses in the agreement between TTCS and SAP survive termination, even where the contract was repudiated by SAP. The court found these clauses to be analogous to arbitration clauses, which are intended to operate in the event of a dispute, including after termination. The agreement expressly provided for the survival of these clauses, and they were reciprocal in nature, applying to both parties. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument based on the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, distinguishing the present clauses from notic…

Source excerpt

• Contract Termination
• Exclusion Of Liability
• Time Bar Clauses
• Approbate And Reprobate
• Survival Of Contract Terms

Eskom Holdings Limited v The Joint Venture of Edison Jehano (Pty) Ltd and KEC International Limited and Others (177/2020)

Eskom Holdings Limited v The Joint Venture of Edison Jehano (Pty) Ltd and KEC International Limited and Others (177/2020) [2021] ZASCA 138 (6 October 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

177/2020

Judges

Dambuza, Makgoka, Nicholls, Gorven, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the arbitrator did not commit a gross irregularity nor exceed his powers under section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator considered the pleadings and schedules submitted by both parties and applied the time-bar clauses to all 13 claims, as was argued before him. The Joint Venture was aware of the time-bar defence and had the opportunity to address it. The arbitrator's determination was consistent with the principle of party autonomy and the requirements of speed, efficiency, flexibility, fairness, and finality in arbitration. There was no e…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 1965
• Gross Irregularity
• Exceeding Powers
• Time Bar Clauses
• Party Autonomy
• Review Of Arbitral Award

Santam Insurance Ltd v Mathekgana (A29/2015)

Santam Insurance Ltd v Mathekgana (A29/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 997 (22 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A29/2015

Judge

A.A. Louw

The High Court dismissed Santam’s appeal, holding that the insured’s claim was not prescribed and not time-barred under the policy’s 12-month clause.

• Prescription Act
• Insurance Contracts
• Time Bar Clauses
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Prescription
• Insurance-law

Napier v Barkhuizen (569/2004)

Napier v Barkhuizen (569/2004) [2005] ZASCA 119; [2006] 2 All SA 469 (SCA); 2006 (9) BCLR 1011 (SCA) 2006 (4) SA 1 (SCA) (30 November 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

569/2004

Judges

MPATI, CAMERON, VAN HEERDEN, MLAMBO, CACHALIA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the time-bar clause in the insurance contract did not violate section 34 of the Constitution. The court distinguished between statutory time-bars imposed on pre-existing rights and contractual time-bars that define the scope of rights created by agreement. The evidence did not show that the contract was not freely entered into or that the clause was unfair in a constitutional sense. The right to insurance arose from the contract itself, which stipulated the time-bar as a condition for enforcement. Section 34 does not prohibit the creation of rights subjec…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Contracts
• Time Bar Clauses
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Access To Courts

S Z Tooling Services CC v South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. (53/1991)

S Z Tooling Services CC v South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. (53/1991) [1992] ZASCA 157; 1993 (1) SA 274 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 217 (A) (18 September 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

53/1991

Judges

Van Heerden, Nestadt, Eksteen, Nienaber, Krieger

The court held that motion proceedings for declaratory relief counted as “legal action” under an insurance time-bar clause, avoiding forfeiture of the insured’s rights.

• Insurance Policy Interpretation
• Time Bar Clauses
• Declaratory Relief
• Forfeiture Of Rights
• Insurance-policy-interpretation
• Time-bar-clauses