Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeFriedman J
Judgment Date28 February 1983
Citation1983 (2) SA 501 (N)
Hearing Date26 November 1982
CourtNatal Provincial Division

Friedman J:

The plaintiff, by means of this action, claims compensation for injuries sustained by him in a motor collision which occurred on 15 November 1979. The defendant is the insurer in terms of Act 56 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as A the MVA Act) of the vehicle which collided with the plaintiff. On 25 November 1981, that is to say, more than two years after the collision, a form of the kind described in s 25 (1) (a) of the MVA Act (the so-called MVA 13 form), duly completed and signed by the plaintiff, was delivered by hand at the defendant's local branch office. Summons in this action was B served on the defendant on 5 February 1982.

The defendant has pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claim against it has become prescribed in terms of s 21 of the MVA Act. The plaintiff has countered this plea by alleging that for an uninterrupted period of 30 days following upon the C collision he was non compos mentis. The matter came before me pursuant to an order of this Court in terms of Rule 33 (4) to the effect that the issue of prescription be decided separately from the other issues in the case. I was asked by both Mr Hurt, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and by Mr McLaren, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, to assume in deciding this D issue that, whatever precisely is comprehended by the term non compos mentis, it is a condition which, at common law, would suspend the running of prescription against a creditor who is in that condition and for as long as he is in that condition. (Cf South African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd v Mapipa 1973 (3) SA 603 (E) at 610B - C.) Whether or not the E plaintiff's claim became prescribed on midnight on 14 November 1981 depends upon whether or not, during the 30 days that he was non compos mentis, prescription ran against the plaintiff, a question which, in turn, depends upon whether the category of persons referred to in s 24 (1) (b) of the MVA Act is exhaustive of those against whom prescription in terms of the Act does not run or whether the common law relating to the F suspension of prescription applies to claims for compensation under the MVA Act.

Section 24 (1) of the MVA Act reads as follows:

"(a)

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law relating to prescription, but subject to the provisions of para (b) of this subsection, the right to claim compensation under s 21 shall become prescribed upon the expiration of a period of two G years from the date upon which the claim arose: provided that prescription shall be suspended during the period of 90 days referred to in s 25 (2).

(b)

Prescription of a claim for compensation under s 21 shall not run against -

(i)

a minor;

(ii)

any person detained as a patient in terms of the provisions of the Mental Health Act 18 of 1973; or

(iii)

H a person under curatorship."

Section 24 (2) then goes on to make provision for the Court under specified conditions and in special circumstances to be able to extend the period of prescription within certain limits.

Looked at simply at the level...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...referred to Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Neethling NO 1958 (2) SA 25 (C): considered Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): Truter and Another v Deysel 2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA): applied. United States F Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party et......
  • Van Zyl NO v Road Accident Fund
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Another 2021 (1) SA 1 (CC) (2020 (10) BCLR 1283; [2020] ZACC 15): referred to Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): referred The Master v Gray NO 1958 (3) SA 524 (C): dictum at 528C applied Torwood Properties (Pty) Ltd v South African Reserve Bank 1996 (......
  • Van Zyl NO v Road Accident Fund
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Another 2021 (1) SA 1 (CC) (2020 (10) BCLR 1283; [2020] ZACC 15): referred to Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): referred The Master v Gray NO 1958 (3) SA 524 (C): dictum at 528C applied Torwood Properties (Pty) Ltd v South African Reserve Bank 1996 (......
  • Road Accident Fund v Smith NO
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Co Ltd v Verdun Estates (Pt.y) Ltd and Another 1990 (2) SA 693 (A): considered Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): not approved and not followed Van Rhyn NO v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie Bpk 1986 (3) SA 460 (0): not approved and not followed. Statu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...referred to Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Neethling NO 1958 (2) SA 25 (C): considered Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): Truter and Another v Deysel 2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA): applied. United States F Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party et......
  • Van Zyl NO v Road Accident Fund
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Another 2021 (1) SA 1 (CC) (2020 (10) BCLR 1283; [2020] ZACC 15): referred to Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): referred The Master v Gray NO 1958 (3) SA 524 (C): dictum at 528C applied Torwood Properties (Pty) Ltd v South African Reserve Bank 1996 (......
  • Van Zyl NO v Road Accident Fund
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Another 2021 (1) SA 1 (CC) (2020 (10) BCLR 1283; [2020] ZACC 15): referred to Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): referred The Master v Gray NO 1958 (3) SA 524 (C): dictum at 528C applied Torwood Properties (Pty) Ltd v South African Reserve Bank 1996 (......
  • Road Accident Fund v Smith NO
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Co Ltd v Verdun Estates (Pt.y) Ltd and Another 1990 (2) SA 693 (A): considered Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): not approved and not followed Van Rhyn NO v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie Bpk 1986 (3) SA 460 (0): not approved and not followed. Statu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT