Sayed v President Insurance Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Caney J
• Judgment Date: 15 February 1967
• Citation: 1967 (2) SA 220 (N)
• Hearing Date: 15 February 1967
• Court: Natal Provincial Division

Caney, J.:

This is an action for damages arising out of a motor collision. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for his bodily injuries sustained

Caney J

in that accident, suing the insurer of the other vehicle. He has claimed the sum of R3,160 in all.

The action commenced this morning with counsel for the defendant, Mr. Howard, making the formal statement that the defendant admitted A liability to compensate the plaintiff for such damages as he is held to have suffered as a result of bodily injuries sustained in the collision in question, subject to deduction of the amount of compensation payable in terms of Act 30 of 1941; (that refers to workmen's compensation).

I heard evidence this morning, and this afternoon counsel have informed B me that on 8th February the defendant made a tender under Rule 34 and that this the plaintiff has, this afternoon, accepted. The details of that tender it is unnecessary to state in full; suffice it to say that the defendant tendered to pay the plaintiff R475 and tendered to pay a further sum not exceeding R200 to suppliers as contemplated by sec. 12 (3) of Act 29 of 1942 and to pay the balance, if any, to the plaintiff. The defendant tendered also to pay the plaintiff's taxed C costs as between party and party on the applicable magistrate's court scale up to the date of the payment into Court of the money in terms of the tender. The plaintiff has accepted that tender this afternoon and is now free to withdraw the money paid into Court, subject to any order for costs in favour of the defendant.

D Mr. Howard, for the defendant, has asked that I award the defendant the costs since 8th February, which is the date of the tender, and he refers in that relation to sub-rule (9) of Rule 34. He makes the sub-mission that the matter is in the discretion of the Court and that generally that discretion is exercised by awarding the costs after the date of a tender to the defendant. Mr. Roux, for the plaintiff, has E submitted that I should not exercise my discretion in favour of the defendant in that respect for the reason that the tender was made...