|
''Singh v Santam Insurance Ltd''〔1997 (1) SA 291 (A).〕 an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Appellate Division〔Schutz JA, Corbett CJ, F H Grosskopf JA, Marais JA, Olivier JA.〕 on 5 September, 1996, with judgment handed down on 17 September. == 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Singh v Santam」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|