Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 21 September 1989
• Citation: 1990 (1) SA 86 (A)

Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd
1990 (1) SA 86 (A)

1990 (1) SA p86

Citation	1990 (1) SA 86 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Joubert JA, Botha JA, Vivier JA, Eksteen JA and Nicholas AJA
Heard	September 7, 1989
Judgment	September 21, 1989

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde G

Insurance — Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972 — Claim under prescribed — Application for relief under s 24(2)(a) — Section 24(2) concerned only with one period of prescription, i e the statutory H period provided for by s 24(1) — Section not providing for any relief in respect of any privately agreed prescriptive period which differs from the statutory period.

Headnote : Kopnota

Section 24(2) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972, which provides for relief where a claim under the Act has prescribed, is I concerned only with one period of prescription, i e the statutory period provided for by s 24(1) and it does not provide for any relief in respect of any privately agreed prescriptive period which differs from the statutory period.

The decision in the Cape Provincial Division in Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd confirmed.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division (Marais J). The J facts appear from the judgment of Vivier JA.

1990 (1) SA p87

A J I Immerman SC for the appellant referred to the following authorities: Kriel v President Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk en 'n Ander 1981 (1) SA 103 (T); Grey v Southern Insurance Association Ltd 1982 (3) SA 688 (E); Vilikazi v National Employers' General Insurance Co Ltd 1985 (4) SA 251 (C); Commercial Union Assurance Co of South Africa Ltd v Zulu B 1978 (4) SA 699 (T); Naidoo v Santam 1986 (1) SA 296 (N); Modise v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1985 (4) SA 650 (B); Commercial Union Assurance Co of South Africa Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1983 (1) SA 226 (A) at 232; Singh v AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd 1976 (4) SA 257 (N) at 259 - 60; Coetzee v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy 1985 (1) SA 389 (A) at 395; Fischer v Commercial Union Assurance Co of South Africa Ltd 1977 (2) SA 499 (C) at 503D; Oelofse v Santam 1982 (3) SA 882 (A) at 890; C President Insurance Co Ltd v Retsos 1988 (1) SA 276 (A) at 284I - J; Guardian National Insurance Co Ltd v Weyers 1988 (1) SA 255 (A) at 283G - H; Fischer v Commercial Union Assurance Co of South Africa Ltd (supra at 503B - E); Botha v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1985 (2) SA 132 (SE) at 135I - J; Lerm v Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie van Suid-Afrika Bpk 1976 (2) SA 428 (NC); Masilo v National Employers D General Insurance Co Ltd 1984 (3) SA 527 (W); Botha v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1985 (2) SA 132 (SE) at 135I - J; Kunene v South African Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd 1977 (4) SA 508D at 511C - 514D.

R P Hoffman for the respondent referred to the following authorities: E Honey MVA Practice ; Kriel v President Versekeringsmaatskappy 1981 (1) SA 103 (T) at 105D - E; Grey v Southern Insurance Association 1982 (3) SA 688 (E) at 693H; Webster v Santam Insurance Co 1972 (2) SA 874 (A); Bezuidenhout v AA Mutual Assurance Association 1978 (1) SA 703 (A); R v Venter 1907 TS 910 at 914 - 15; S v Burger 1963 (4) SA 304 (C) at 308A; Ex parte the Minister of Justice: In re R v Jacobson and Levy 1931 AD F 466 at 477; Port Elizabeth Municipality v Uitenhage Municipality 1971 (1) SA 724 (A) at 738; Modise v IGI Ltd 1985 (4) SA 650 (B) at 654C; Manyeka v Marine and Trade Insurance Co Ltd 1979 (1) SA 844 (SE); Federated Employers Insurance Co Ltd v Magubane 1981 (2) SA 710 (A); Oelofse v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1982 (3) SA 882 (A); Commercial Union G Assurance v Johannesburg City Council 1983 (1) SA 226 (A); National Employers' General Insurance Co Ltd v Masilo 1986 (1) SA 265 (T); Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Job 1987 (1) SA 63 (C); Guardian National Insurance Co Ltd v Weyers 1988 (1) SA 255 (A).

Cur adv vult.

H Postea (September 21).

Judgment

Vivier JA:

The appellant applied in the Cape Provincial Division for an order in terms of s 24(2)(a) (ii) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972 ('the Act') granting him leave to serve process upon the respondent despite the fact that his claim had become I prescribed under s 24(1) of the Act. The application was dismissed by Marais J and the appellant now appeals with the leave of this Court.

The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be summarised as follows. On 15 June 1981 the appellant sustained serious bodily injuries in a collision between a motor vehicle driven by himself and another J motor

1990 (1) SA p88

Vivier JA

A vehicle driven by one Booysen. As a third party within the meaning of those words in s 21 of the Act, the appellant instructed a firm of attorneys to act on his behalf in claiming compensation from the respondent, as the authorised insurer under the Act, of Booysen's vehicle. In compliance with the provisions of s 25(1) of the Act, the appellant's claim for compensation in an amount of R25 760, set out on B the prescribed form MVA 13 and accompanied by the prescribed medical report, was duly lodged with respondent at some unspecified time after 17 December 1981. Apparently nothing happened thereafter until 15 April 1983 when respondent offered without prejudice, to settle the appellant's claim for the sum of R2 858,16 and to make a contribution of R150 towards his costs. A few days later, on 29 April 1983, the C respondent further agreed that the appellant should be examined, at its cost, by an orthopaedic surgeon in order to obtain an updated medico-legal report on his condition.

The appellant thereafter terminated the services of the attorneys who had up to that stage been acting for him, and on 11 May 1983 instructed D the firm of Frank and Frank to act on his behalf. Mr Jack Stanley Frank ('Frank') of this firm handled the appellant's claim thereafter.

Allowing for...