Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jansen AR, Joubert AR en Botha Wn AR
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1982
• Hearing Date: 06 May 1982
• Court: Appellate Division

Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd
1983 (1) SA 318 (A)

1983 (1) SA p318

Citation	1983 (1) SA 318 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Jansen AR, Joubert AR en Botha Wn AR
Heard	May 6, 1982
Judgment	September 20, 1982

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Sessie — Aard van — Hoe dit aangegaan word.

Sessie — Die sessionaris — Hy kan sy verkreë vorderingsreg aan iemand anders sedeer — Kan sy reg ook aan die sedent terugsedeer of 'n ontbindingsooreenkoms met die sedent aangaan — So 'n ontbindingsooreenkoms vervul die funksie van 'n terugsessie — Sessie van regte kragtens 'n versekeringspolis deur versekerde aan 'n derde as sessionaris — Versekeraar het sessionaris meegedeel dat sessie kragtens die polis ongeldig is — Versekeraar se mening oor geldigheid daarvan deur versekerde en sessionaris aanvaar — Versekerde het later aksie teen die versekeraar ingestel — Sodanige optrede het op 'n stilswyende ontbindingsooreenkoms (ten opsigte van sessie) neergekom — Versekeraar se verweer dat versekerde, weens die sessie, nie locus standi in judicio het nie derhalwe verwerp.

Versekering — Motorpolis — Eis deur versekerde om vergoeding vir toebehore ens van 'n voertuig vermis — Voorwaarde in polis dat, "in geval van diefstal... moet die versekerde die polisie onmiddellik in kennis stel" — Polisie nie in kennis gestel nie — Bewyslas op versekeraar om op A oorwig van waarskynlikheid te bewys dat vermiste toebehore ens gesteel is — Bewyslas nie gekwyt nie — Versekeraar aanspreeklik.

Headnote : Kopnota

Sessie in ons moderne reg kan gesien word as 'n oordragshandeling ("act of transfer") om die oordrag van 'n vorderingsreg (translatio juris) te laat plaasvind. Dit geskied deur middel van 'n oordragsooreenkoms ("agreement of transfer") tussen die sedent en die sessionaris uit hoofde van 'n justa causa waaruit die bedoeling van die sedent om die vorderingsreg op die sessionaris oor te dra (animus transferendi) en die bedoeling van die sessionaris om die reghebbende van die vorderingsreg te word (animus acquirendi), blyk of afgelei kan word. Die oordragsooreenkoms kan saamval met of voorafgegaan word deur 'n justa causa wat 'n verbintenisskeppende ooreenkoms ("obligatory agreement") kan wees soos, bv, 'n verkoopkontrak, 'n ruilkontrak, 'n skenkingskontrak, 'n skikkingsooreenkoms of selfs 'n betaling (solutio).

Dit staan 'n sessionaris vry om sy verkreë vorderingsreg aan iemand anders te sedeer. Indien die sessionaris sy verkreë vorderingsreg aan die vorige sedent (skuldeiser) sou sedeer, het ons te doen met 'n terugsessie ("recession"). Die sedent en die sessionaris kan 'n ontbindingsooreenkoms aangaan ten aansien van die oordragsooreenkoms omdat hulle deur wedersydse wilsooreenstemming van die oordragsooreenkoms wil terugtree (resiliri). Hulle bedoeling is onmiskenbaar om die oordragsooreenkoms ongedaan te maak met die bedoeling van die sessionaris om op te hou om reghebbende van die vorderingsreg te wees en met die bedoeling van die sedent om weer reghebbende van die vorderingsreg te wees. Die ontbindingsooreenkoms bring 'n translatio van die vorderingsreg mee en vervul derhalwe die funksie van 'n terugsessie.

In hoër beroep teen die afwysing van 'n aksie vir betaling van 'n bedrag, synde die waarde van toebehore en reserwedele wat van 'n voertuig vermis was, kragtens 'n versekeringspolis, het die Appèlafdeling 'n spesiale pleit dat die versekerde (die eiser) nie locus standi in judicio gehad het aangesien hy sy eis aan 'n derde gesedeer het, afgewys waar dit geblyk het dat 'n amptenaar van die versekeringsmaatskappy (die verweerder) die sessionaris en sy prokureur meegedeel het dat die sessie ongeldig was aangesien dit nie deur die verweerder aanvaar sou word nie, soos die verweerder geregtig was om te doen in terme van die polis, en, nadat eiser hiervan verwitting was, het die eiser en die sessionaris dit so aanvaar het. Die Hof het bevind dat hierdie optrede van die eiser en die sessionaris neergekom het op 'n stilswyende ooreenkoms wat dieselfde effek as 'n stilswyende ontbindingsooreenkoms (ten aansien van 'n sessie) gehad het omdat hulle bedoeling was dat die sessionaris nie reghebbende van die vorderingsreg moes wees nie maar dat die eiser wel die reghebbende daarvan moes wees.

Die Hof het ook in hoër beroep beslis dat die verweer deur die versekeraar opgewerp dat die eiser 'n voorwaarde in die polis dat "in geval van diefstal... moet die versekerde die polisie onmiddellik in kennis stel" verbreek het aangesien die polisie nie in kennis gestel was dat die toebehore en reserwedele gesteel was nie, verwerp moes gewees het aangesien die bewyslas op die versekeraar (die verweerder) gerus het om op 'n oorwig van waarskynlikheid te bewys dat daar diefstal van die vermiste toebehore en reserwedele plaasgevind het en dat, op die feite, die versekeraar hom nie van die bewyslas gekwyt het nie. Die eiser was derhalwe geregtig op betaling kragtens die polis.

Die beslissing in die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling in Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1980 (3) SA 641 (C) omvergewerp.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Cession — Nature of — How it is executed.

Cession — The cessionary — He can cede the acquired right to claim to somebody else — Can also re-cede his right to the cedent or enter into a dissolution agreement with the cedent — Such a dissolution agreement fulfils the functions of a re-cession — Cession of rights under an insurance policy by insured to a third person as cessionary — Insurer informing cessionary that cession invalid in terms of the policy — Insurer's opinion concerning validity thereof accepted by insured and cessionary — Insured later instituting action against insurer — Such conduct amountng to a tacit dissolution agreement (in respect of the cession) — Insurer's defence that insured, by reason of the cession, had no locus standi in judicio accordingly rejected.

Insurance — Motor policy — Claim by insured for compensation for accessories

1983 (1) SA p319

etc missing from a vehicle — Condition in policy that, "in the case of theft... the insured must immediately inform the police" — Police not notified — Onus on insurer to prove on a balance of probabilities that missing accessories had been stolen — Onus not discharged — Insurer liable.

Headnote : Kopnota

Cession, in our modern law, can be seen as an act of transfer ("oordragshandeling") to enable the transfer of a right to claim (translatio juris) to take place. It is accomplished by means of an agreement of transfer ("oordragsooreenkoms") between the cedent and the cessionary arising out of a justa causa from which the intention of the cedent to transfer the right to claim to the cessionary (animus transferendi) and the intention of the cessionary to become the holder of the right to claim (animus acquirendi) appears or can be inferred. The agreement of transfer can coincide with, or be preceded by, a justa causa which can be an obligatory agreement ("verbintenisskeppende ooreenkoms") such as, eg, a contract of sale, a contract of exchange, a contract of donation, an agreement of settlement or even a payment (solutio).

A cessionary is at liberty to cede his acquired right to claim to somebody else. If the cessionary cedes his acquired right to claim to the previous cedent (creditor), we have to do with a re-cession ("terugsessie"). The cedent and the cessionary can enter into a dissolution agreement in respect of the agreement of transfer because by mutual consent they want to resile (resiliri) from the agreement of transfer. Their intention is unmistakeably to undo the agreement of transfer with the intention of the cessionary ceasing to be the holder of the right to claim and with the intention of the cedent of again becoming the holder of the right to claim. The dissolution agreement results in a translatio of the right to claim and fulfils, therefore, the function of a re-cession.

1983 (1) SA p320

In an appeal against the dismissal of an action for payment of an amount, being the value of accessories and spare parts which went missing from a vehicle, in terms of an insurance policy, the Appellate Division dismissed a special plea that the insured (the plaintiff) had no locus standi in judicio as he had ceded his claim to a third person, where it appeared that an official of the insurance company (the defendant) had informed the cessionary and his attorney that the cession was invalid as it would not be accepted by the defendant, as the defendant was entitled to do in terms of the policy, and, after the plaintiff had been informed hereof, the plaintiff and the cessionary had accepted the position. The Court found that this conduct of the plaintiff and the cessionary amounted to a tacit agreement having the same effect as a tacit dissolution agreement (in respect of the cession) because their intention was that the cessionary should not be the holder of the right to claim but that the plaintiff should, indeed, be the holder of that right.

The Court also, in an appeal, held that the defence raised by the insurer that the plaintiff had breached a condition of the policy that "in the case of theft... the insured must immediately inform the police" as the police had not been informed that the accessories and spare parts had been stolen should have been dismissed as the onus of proof rested on the insurer (the defendant) to prove on a balance of probabilities that theft of the missing accessories and spare parts had taken place and that, on the facts, the insurer had not discharged the onus. The plaintiff was accordingly entitled to payment in terms of the policy.

The decision in the Cape Provincial Division in Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1980 (3) SA 641 reversed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling (FRIEDMAN R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van JOUBERT AR.

P le R van Wyk namens die appellant...