The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an application by Prime Meridian Direct (now known as Prime South Africa) to strike out a claim filed by Siyabonga Muswenkosi Shabalala following a vehicle accident.
In the case, Shabalala sought damages he said were sustained as a result of negligent driving by Mthuthuzeli Madikane. In his particulars of claim, Shabalala said Prime Meridian is joined in its capacity as Madikane’s insurer.
In its notice of exception, Prime Meridian complained that the case against it is advanced on the basis that it is jointly and severally liable with Madzikane for Shabalala’s loss. It argued that since there is no allegation in the particulars that it played any role causing Shabalala’s loss, it takes the view that the particulars sustain no cause of action against it.
Shabalala asserted that he suffered damages as a result of an accident involving Madikane’s vehicle. He implicated Prime Meridian as Madikane's insurer. However, Prime Meridian contended that the particulars of claim do not adequately support a cause of action against it, arguing there is no evidence that it played any role in causing Shabalala’s alleged loss.
Judge SD Wilson, presiding over the matter, said, "That strikes me as a misreading of Shabalala’s particulars of claim. While the conclusion that Prime Meridian is jointly and severally liable with Madikane for Shabalala’s loss cannot be sustained on the pleaded case, it is clear from the particulars of claim read as a whole that Prime Meridian has really been joined on the basis that it is liable to Shabalala in its capacity as Madikane’s insurer for such damages as he may eventually prove.
"When the particulars are read in that way, Prime Meridian’s true complaint seems to me to be one of misjoinder, since Shabalala cannot claim directly against Prime Meridian for his loss. Prime Meridian’s interest in the claim, if any, is as a third party. That interest will arise if and when Madikane claims on his insurance policy, if any, with it."
During the proceedings, Prime Meridian did not seek to allow Shabalala the opportunity to remedy the claim or address its apparent misjoinder. Instead, the insurer solely sought the striking out of specific claims against it. Judge Wilson, reflecting on the merits of the case, ruled that it was premature to disregard any potential interest Prime Meridian may have in the action, particularly given the necessity to consider the claimant's allegations as true at the exception stage.
The ruling concluded that Prime Meridian still retains the option to challenge any assertions of joint liability or to submit further exceptions concerning the misjoinder of claims in a more defined legal context.
#Conviction
