Singh v Santam

Last updated

Singh v Santam Insurance Ltd, [1] an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Appellate Division [2] on 5 September 1996, with judgment handed down on 17 September.

Contents

Facts

Ms Singh brought motion proceedings in a Local Division, claiming an order for the return of her vehicle, which was then in the possession of Santam.

The insurance company had issued a motor dealers' external risks policy to a firm owned by one "M." Singh's car was damaged in an accident in circumstances such that Santam was obliged to indemnify "M" under the policy. "M" submitted a claim form in respect of the damage, and Santam instructed a panelbeater to effect repairs and paid for them. When Santam later became aware that M had failed to pay any premiums, it cancelled the policy and, on 5 July, 1990 took the car while it was still in possession of the panelbeater.

Singh alleged that she was the owner of the car, and that Santam's possession was unlawful. The case hinged on Santam's claim that it had been impoverished and the appellant enriched to the extent of the payment to the panelbeater, and that it was accordingly entitled to retain possession under a lien operative against Singh.

The Local Division found for the appellant, whereafter a Full Bench of a Provincial Division found for Santam.

Judgment

On appeal to the Appellate Division, the court pointed out that any lien the panelbeater might have had ended when Santam paid for the repairs. The court then held that the problem with the suggestion that Santam had acquired its own lien was that the expenditure in question had to occur while the party claiming the lien was in possession of the subject-matter; Santam, however, incurred no expenditure, and made no improvement to the car, after it took possession. [3]

The suggestion that the panelbeater possessed the vehicle as an agent for Santam, and that Santam accordingly did acquire possession before 5 July, was not borne out by Santam's own affidavit, which stated that "M" had placed the panelbeater in possession of the car, that it was returned to him, and that Santam only later took possession. The mere fact that Santam had authorised the panelbeater to effect the repairs took the matter no further, because the panelbeater could at least as readily have done so while holding the car for "M" as for Santam.

Given that it was "M" who delivered the car, it was necessary for Santam to prove that there had been some form of attornment, a tripartite agreement between Santam, the panelbeater and "M" to the effect that, although the panelbeater had formerly held for "M," it would thereafter hold for Santam. There was, however, no attempt to prove such an attornment; accordingly, the attempt to establish possession prior to 5 July had to fail.

The court held further, with respect to the requirement that the possession upon which reliance was placed had to have been lawfully acquired, that this caused a further problem for the insurance company: It was difficult to understand what right Santam had to take possession of the car, or for that matter what right the panelbeater had to surrender it to Santam.

An enrichment lien, the court noted, could not exist in vacuo; it served merely to strengthen an underlying cause of action based on unjust enrichment. Even assuming that the impoverishment of Santam and the enrichment of Singh were established, it had not been sine causa. The facts in the instant case were akin to the second type of claim mentioned in Buzzard Electrical v Jan Smuts Avenue Investments , [4] [5] where the owner had contracted with "B" for improvements to his property, but where "B," instead of doing the work himself, had subcontracted it to "A," who sued the owner once the work was finished. In such a case, it was held, the owner's enrichment was not sine causa; it had its origin in the agreement with "B." The court found accordingly that, if Singh had been a party to the arrangements between "M" and Santam, her enrichment flowed from "M's" insurance policy, not from Santam's payment; if anyone was entitled to be enriched gratuitously, it was she.

Furthermore, even if the facts were not akin to type two in Buzzard, the question remained as to whether or not Singh's enrichment was unjust. It appeared that Santam had cancelled the policy by conscious choice only a fortnight after the payment to the panelbeater, so that payment was made pursuant to the policy. [6] The court held that, even if the policy had perished automatically because of non-payment of the premiums, Santam's evidence indicated that it made payment in the belief that it was still alive. There was no evidence of error; even if there had been, it would have been unfair to visit the consequences on Singh, the party entitled to have her car repaired for nothing. Accordingly, the court added, it could well be that Santam's claim to a lien should founder also for lack of an underlying enrichment action.

The upshot was that Santam had not proved an enrichment lien, and that Singh, as owner, was entitled to the return of her car. [7] The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division, in Santam Insurance Ltd v Devi [8] was reversed.

See also

Related Research Articles

A lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienee and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienor or lien holder.

Subrogation

Subrogation is the assumption by a third party of another party's legal right to collect a debt or damages. It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for one's own benefit. A right of subrogation typically arises by operation of law, but can also arise by statute or by agreement. Subrogation is an equitable remedy, having first developed in the English Court of Chancery. It is a familiar feature of common law systems. Analogous doctrines exist in civil law jurisdictions.

Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle district of Alabama in favor of the appellees, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, adjudging them entitled to the sum of, 161.21, and interest thereon at eight percent per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the roadbed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants, corporations of the State of Georgia, in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale unless within a given time the said amount was paid. This suit is the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property in which the appellants are interested.

South African property law

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

Vorster v Santam Insurance Co Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict. It was heard from 17 to 19 November, 1972, with judgment handed down on 22 November.

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels ACJ, Trollip JA, Hofmeyr JA, Miller JA and Trengove AJA on 15 February 1978, with judgment handed down on 21 March.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of cession. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Joubert JA, Nestadt JA, Van den Heever JA, Olivier JA and Van Coller AJA on 19 September 1995, with judgment passed on 29 November. M. Tselentis SC was counsel for the appellant; MJD Wallis SC appeared for the respondents.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Administrator, Cape, and Another v Ntshwaqela and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 7 November 1989, with judgment handed down on 30 November. Corbett CJ, Hoexter JA, Nestadt JA, Steyn JA and Nicholas AJA.

<i>Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield</i>

Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield is notable for being the last ruling rendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with respect to an appeal from the courts of Canada. The central issue concerned the construction of statutes relating to mechanic's liens and how they attach to land and the oil and gas severed from it, which issue had generated conflicting rulings in the Canadian courts.

<i>Brown v Galbraith</i>

Brown and Davis v Galbraith [1972] 1 WLR 997 is an English unjust enrichment law case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

General Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others is an important case in the South African law of delict, particularly the area of compensation for motor vehicle accidents. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, by Joubert JA, Van Heerden JA, Smalberger JA, F H Grosskopf JA and Van Coller AJA, on November 18, 1991, with judgment handed down on November 29. The appellant, whose attorneys were Silberbauers, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein, was represented by BM Griesel. The respondents, whose attorneys were Coulter, Van Gend & Kotze, Claremont, and Webbers, Bloemfontein, were represented by BJR Whitehead.

Wells and Another v Shield Insurance Co Ltd and Others is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Corbett J on March 15, 1965, with judgment handed down on April 7. The attorneys of the excipient, who was represented in court by DL Kooy, SC, were Reilly, Reilly & Tucker. The respondent's attorneys were Sonnenberg, Hoffman & Galombik, and he was represented by S. Aaron.

Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.

Lubbe v Volkskas Bpk 1992 (3) SA 868 (A); [1992] 2 All SA 270 (A) is an important case in the South African law of lease. In October 1987, the appellant brought an urgent application before a single judge in which he applied for an order

  1. declaring that he had established a lien over the wheat crop on a certain part of the farm T; and
  2. instructing the deputy sheriff to sell the said farm subject to his lien.
<i>Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter</i>

Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter [1993] AC 713 was a judicial decision of House of Lords relating to the right of subrogation where an insurer pays with respect to an insured risk and the assured later recovers damages from a third party with respect to that same loss. The case also determined that the right of subrogation is fortified by an equitable lien over the proceeds of the claim against the third party.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ 1997 (1) SA 291 (A).
  2. ↑ Schutz JA, Corbett CJ, F H Grosskopf JA, Marais JA, Olivier JA.
  3. ↑ 295I-J.
  4. ↑ 1996 (4) SA 19 (A).
  5. ↑ 25I-J
  6. ↑ 298A-C.
  7. ↑ 298E.
  8. ↑ 1994 (3) SA 763 (T).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.