Tshipu v Bryte Insurance Company Limited and Another (Leave to Appeal) (056972/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 845 (11 August 2025)

45 Reportability
Insurance Law

Brief Summary

In the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria), the case of Tshipu Kleinbooi Ngako v. Bryte Insurance Company Limited and Mobility Insurance Underwriting Managers revolved around the Applicant's request for leave to appeal a dismissal order regarding a monetary insurance claim. The initial order, granted on January 31, 2025, dismissed the Applicant's claim against the Respondents. The Applicant's appeal did not specify which court it was directed to, but the court nonetheless considered the merits of the application. The court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate any misdirection of law or fact in the original judgment. The Applicant's arguments centered on two main points: that the court had exceeded the scope of the pleadings by considering the terms of the agreement between the parties and that insufficient weight was given to the tracker certificate as evidence. However, the court concluded that the terms of the agreement were indeed relevant and that the tracker certificate did not substantiate the Applicant's claims regarding the operational status of the tracker at the time of loss. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, ordering the Applicant to pay the Respondents' costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPOR TABLE : N~
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTH ER JUDG ES : /J,,1
(3) REVISED: /
I N U RE
In the matter between:
11 August 2025
DA TE
TSHIPU KLEINBOOI NGAKO
and
BRYTE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MOBILITY INSURAN C E UNDERWRITING MANAGERS
Case N o: 056972/2024
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as
such and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties I their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for handing down is deemed to be 11 August 2025.

2
LEAVE TO APPEAL
RETIEF J
IN TRODU C TION
[1] The Applicant applies for leave to appeal "-to the court against the order
granted on the 31 January 2025-". The order granted was a dismissal of the
Applicant's monetary insurance claim brought against the Respondents, on motion.
The Applicant in his to appeal does not inform this Court to wh ich Court leave is
sought.
[2] Be that as it may , the reason for the dismissal order is apparent from the
reasoned judgment and considering the reasons, the order competent. The
Applicant only contends that he is appealing the order granted on the 31 January
2025.
[3] . N otwithstanding, this Court has regard to the content of the leave to appeal
which deals with the judgment. In so doing, the Applicant does not clearly and
concisely set out the Court's m isdirection's of law or fact upon wh ich the Applicant
relies on. However in argument the Applicant's Counsel crystallised the grounds for
the Court and argued that the A pplicant relied on two grounds namely that the Court
considered the issues beyond the scope of the pleadings and should have confined
its findings to the content of the rejection letter from the Respondent and, that the
Court failed to place sufficient evidentiary we ight to the tracker certificate.
[4] The first ground appears to suggest that the Court should not have taken
cognizance of nor dealt with the terms of the agreement relied on by the Applicant
which was concluded between the parties on the 6 N ovember 2003, marked and
attached as "K1 " to the Applicant's founding papers. This contention is raised in
circumstances when the Applicant relied on the express tacit and implied terms of
the agreement as the basis for his monetary claim. The terms of the agreement also
created the rights and obligations between the parties, including triggering the

3
Respondent's rejection in writing. This argument, on the pleaded facts, cannot
stand.
[5] Furthermore, the Court did give due weight to the tracking certificate but,
together with the other documentary evidence found that it did not support the terms
of the agreement as it pertained, inter alia, to the proof of an operational tracker unit
on the date of loss.
[6] The Court having heard the argument by both Counsel in this matter, having
revisited the reason judgment, and considered the content of the leave to appeal,
the Court is of the opinion that the Applicant has not me t the threshold of section
17(1 )(a)(i) or (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 and in consequence, leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs.
[7] The following order:
1. Leave to appeal is dismissed
2. The Applicant is ordered to pay the Respondent's cost of suit, Counsel's fees
to be taxed on scale B.
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Instructed by attorneys:
Adv:
Cell:
Email:
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division
DB Melaphi
061 631 9358
daniel@advme laphi.co.za
Attorneys: ME Makgopa Attorneys

For the First Respondent
Instructed by attorneys:
For the Second Respondent
Instructed by attorneys:
Date of argument:
Date of judgment:
Tel:
Email:
Ref:
Adv:
Tel:
Email:
Attorneys:
Tel:
Email:
Adv :
Tel:
Email:
071 209 3448
Adm in@makgopaattorneys.co.za
MR NGAKO/T4/2024
F J Erasmus SC
012 947 9426
frik@clubadvocates.co.za
Prinsloo Attorneys
012 329 7126
adam@12rinsloo.co.za
ansie@prinsloo.co.za
F J Erasmus SC
012 947 9426
frik@clubadvocates.co.za
Attorneys: Prinsloo Attorneys
Tel: 012 329 7126
Email: adama@12rinsloo.co.za
ansie@prinsloo.co za
31 July 2024
11 August 2024
4