Africa-Press – South-Africa. A man who claims that his car was stolen after he was drugged by unknown women after a late-night party has won a court case ordering that his insurer pay him out for the vehicle.
Thabo Joseph Molefe turned to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to appeal against a judgment of the district court, which dismissed Molefe’s claim against MiWay Insurance for payment of R164 880, the replacement value of a 2010 Mercedes-Benz.
MiWay rejected his claim, stating it was supplied with dishonest information by Molefe.
According to the judgment, penned by acting Judge CK Matshitse with Judge Brenda Neukircher concurring, Molefe said his car was stolen on 22 January 2018.
Dizzy with no memory
Molefe and his friend Victor went to a “social event” in the evening where they met and socialised with two unknown women.
At the end of the evening, the two women asked Molefe for a lift as he and Victor were about to leave.
Molefe said that when he arrived at his cousin’s house, he was already not feeling well, but did not stay there because the women wanted to purchase food. Molefe took them to a nearby petrol station.
Molefe said he has no recollection of events that unfolded after he arrived at the station.
Matshitse said:
“His evidence was that he was ‘dizzy’. He managed to approach a nearby shop and eventually managed to contact his family. Thereafter when he was still ‘tired, sleepy, very much dizzy’, he went to SAPS to open a case of theft of his motor vehicle.”
Molefe later found out that Victor was suffering from the same symptoms.
They suspected that the two women had drugged them.
The insurance claim
After opening a criminal case, Molefe lodged a claim with MiWay for the loss of his car.
Molefe originally told MiWay that they left the social event at around midnight but later told the assessor investigating the claim that he could have underestimated the time because they only arrived at his cousin’s house sometime after 04:00.
Dealing with the assessor, Molefe conceded he had an open alcoholic beverage in his vehicle when they left the social event.
He also gave the insurer video footage from the garage that shows a woman exiting his vehicle at 04:30 to go to the shop before returning and the vehicle driving off.
Molefe was also booked off from work after consulting a doctor about being dizzy.
He deregistered his car and it was listed as stolen.
On the insurer’s side, the assessor spoke to Victor and another person who had seen Molefe the following day. MiWay also spoke to Molefe’s cousin. All three individuals corroborated Molefe’s version.
“On 8 February 2018 Mr Molefe had his final interview at MiWay’s offices during which MiWay’s assessor informed Mr Molefe that he was under the impression that no false information was given by Mr Molefe to MiWay,” the judge said.
Despite this, MiWay subsequently rejected Molefe’s claim, citing that he gave dishonest information.
Challenging the decision, Molefe approached the district court, which not only agreed with MiWay that Molefe was dishonest, but also took matters one step further and found that Molefe had acted fraudulently.
However, the High Court found that the district court had erred as fraud was not MiWay’s pleaded case.
Matshitse said:
Material misdirection and honesty.
The contested information was whether or not Molefe dropped off the two women before or after he lost consciousness, where the alcoholic beverage was in his vehicle and the time he left the social event.
The High Court agreed that these issues were material and constituted a misdirection, but questioned whether Molefe’s evidence was so prejudicial to MiWay, that the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim.
Matshitse found that on the evidence presented and on a balance of probabilities, Molefe proved that his vehicle was indeed stolen.
The court further said that Molefe’s account was honest as he did concede he had been drinking and had an open alcoholic beverage in the vehicle.
“It is my view that Mr Molefe’s actions, viewed holistically, establishes that on a balance of probabilities his motor vehicle was indeed stolen on the night of the 22[nd of] January 2018.”
The High Court further noted that there was no basis upon which the district court found that the discrepancies in Molefe’s version were so momentous that they prejudiced the insurer.
“In fact, it is my view that they were not material at all. Thus, there was no basis upon which they should have dismissed Mr Molefe’s claim, and there was no basis upon which the court a quo could have dismissed his claim either,” Matshitse said.
The court upheld Molefe’s appeal. The court also ordered that MiWay pay Molefe’s legal costs.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
