SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA






IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE

CASE NO: 6616/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 30 MAY 2025
SIGNATURE:

In the matter between:

NORMAN LUXURY TOURS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
(Reg Number : 2002/0852028/23)

AND :-

STAL KER HUTCHINGSON ADMIRAL (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
(Reg Number 1985/000368/07)

JUDGMENT: EXCEPTION

MANGENA AJ

[1] Norman Luxury Tours (Pty) Ltd (NLT) is a bus operating entity and owns a
fleet of vehicles insured through Stalker Hutchinson Admiral (Pty) Ltd,(SHA) the
underwriti ng managers for Santam Limited.

[2] On or about 16 June 2019 one of the vehicles owned by NLT, namely a MAN
18.360 4 x 2 LL -FOCR Bus with registration number F[...] was involved in a motor
collision near Modjadjieskloof.

[3] NLT submitted a claim for insurance payout to SHA and the claim was
rejected on the basis that there was no risk cover issued in respect of the damage -
:bus.

[4] Unhappy with the outcome, NLT instituted this proceedings and cited the
Defendant as Stalker Hutchinson Admiral (Pty) Ltd obo Santam Limited. The claim is
for payment of the amount of R2 263 734.85 being the retail value of the vehicle
together with towing costs.

[5] The particulars of claim alleges that the Defend ant and/or its agent undertook
to insure NLT's vehicle and indemnify it against any loss which may occur arising out
of a motor vehicle collision.

[6] The Defendant pleaded to the Plaintiff ’s par ticulars of claim denying liability
both on its own behalf as underwriting managers and on behalf of Santam Limited as
the short -term insurer. In amplific ation, the Defendant stated the following: -

6.1 Plaintif f (NLT) concluded a short -term insurance contract with Santam Ltd
for the period 1 May 2019 -30 April 2020.

6.2. SHA acted as underwriting managers for and on behalf of Santam Ltd, a
registered short -term insurer.

6.3. Both SHA and Santam Ltd specifically plead that the damaged vehicle
was not specified by either Plaintiff and/or Defendant and/or Santam Ltd to be
covered in terms of the policy and did not therefore form part of the
commercial vehicles specified in the schedule.

[7] NLT, through its attorneys comp lains about the plea as being vague and
embarrassing alternatively lacking averments necessary to sustain a defence. It was
submitted on its behalf that is shall not be possible to replicate to the plea it stands
without suffering an embarrassment in that SHA cannot plead on behalf of Santam
Ltd when same is not a party to the proceedings.

[8] The Defendant, Stalker Hutchinson Admiral (Pty) Ltd does not agree that the
plea as formulated is vague and embarrassing when regard is had t o the fac t that it
is the Plaintiff who introduced Santam Ltd in the summons by stating t hat it is suing
the Defendant on behalf of Santam Limited. The Defen dant it is submitted, denied its
liability for the debt and in amplification pleaded S antam's involvement in the
transaction. This is a perfect answer.

[9] Rule 18(4) requires every pleading to c ontain clear and concise material facts
a party relies on in support of his or her claim or defence. The pleadings must
therefore be lucid, logical and intelligible. To establish whether there is logic, lucidity
and intelligence in a pleading, the pleadings must be read as a whole because an
exception cannot be taken to a paragraph or a part of a pleading that is not self-
contained . An over technical a pproach should be avoided because it destroys the
usefulness of the exc eption procedure, which is to weed out cases without legal
merit. It is important to bear in mind that the object of an exception is not t o
embarrass one's opponent or t o take advantage of a technical flaw, but to dispose of
the case in an expeditio us manner without causing embarrassment. Living Hands v
Ditz, 2013 (2) SA 368 ( GST) para 15.

[10] Plaintiff instituted the action against SHA on behalf of Santam Ltd. To
understand who are the parties to this litigation, it will be important to unpack the
meaning of the words "on half of " as used by Plaintiff.

[11] During oral submission s, Mr Mathebula who appeared for the Plaintiff was at
pains to explain the meaning of the phrase or words in relation to who is the
defendant in this proceedings.

[12] As I see it, the words "on behalf of' can have different meanings depending on
context. In certain instances, it may mean as a representative of' and this will be the
case in situations where a person acts in a representative capacity either as an
agent or a principal. It can also mean "for the benefit of' someone as in where a
person receiv es something meant for someone else such as where a curator
receives compensation on behalf of a patient. The act of the receiving the funds is
done "for the benefit of the patient" and this may not necessarily be in a
representative capacity.

[13] In the context of legal proceedings where referen ce is made to the words "on
behalf of " the meaning capable of ready acceptance is a cting in a representative
capacity. This is so because litigation can only b e between parties involved in a legal
dispute acting either in person or in a representative capacity. In De Visser v
Fitzpatrick, 1907 T.S 355 at P363 Innes CJ explai ned the phrase "on behalf of" as
follows: -

"The popular meaning of those words is that everything done for a man's
benefit or.in his interest or to his advantage is a thing done on his behalf. On
the other hand, the more legal view is that they mean something done by a
man's representative or agent. The counsel who have so ably argued this
case appeared "on behalf " of their respective clients as their representatives
or agents".

[14] If we are to accept the meaning as described above, it follows logically that
Plaintiff invited Santam Ltd in the proceedings by describing SHA as its agent or
representative. To the extent that Plaintiff may want to argue that SHA is the
Defendant and cannot make reference to Santam Ltd in its plea as this will cause it
an embarrassment, this is not true. SHA accepts that it is the Defendant but to the
extent that Plaintiff seeks to impute liability for an insurance claim on her, it denies
and state why it should not be l iable for the claim. It says it is not the insurer but an
underwriting manager. The policy is with Santam Ltd and has been rejected.

[15] The principles governing exceptions are trite and I referred to them in
paragraph 9 above. In the whole allegations o r averments pleaded as facts must be
taken as true for purposes of an exception. A court may uphold an exception only if it
is satisfied that the cause of action or conclusion of law cannot be sustained on
every interpretation that can be plead on pleaded facts. In the context of a plea it
must be in an intelligible form so that the Plaintiff may not be embarrassed in
meeting it or leave one guessing as to what it means. Tongaat Hu llet Limited ·and
Others v Staude and Others (6075 /2020P) [2023 ] ZAKZPHC 4(2 3 Janu ary 2023)
@ para 16 - 17.

[16] Considering the Defendant's plea in its totality and according to it a charitable
and benevolent interpretation, it is clear that there is no vagueness in it and Plaintiff
will not be prejudiced in any manner. What the Defendant has done was to answer to
the Plaintiff ’s case as pleaded. If the plaintiff does not like the plea as it stands, the
door is still open for an amendment or joinder or third -party procedure. It certainly
cannot be the Defendant 's responsibility to bring other parties to the proceedings
when Plaintiff as dominus litis can do so.

[17] In the circumstances, the following orders are: -

17.1 The exception is dismissed.

17.2 The Plaintiff (excipient) is ordered to pay costs on a party and party
scale B of the High Court tariffs including the costs of Counsel.


M. MANGENA AJ
ACTING JUDGE O F THE HIGH COURT
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE


APPEARANCES

FOR APPLICANT /PLAI NTIFF : Adv. R.C. MATHEVULA
ESPAG MAGWAI ATTORNEYS
POLOKWANE

FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT : Mr. P. BIELDERMAN (Attorney)
BIELDERMANS ATTORNEYS
PRETORIA
C/O HENSTOCK VAN DEN HEEVER
POLOKWANE

HEARD ON : 12 MAY 2025
DELIVERED ON : 30 MAY 2025