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

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 845 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Tshipu v Bryte Insurance Company Limited and Another (Leave to Appeal) (056972/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 845 (11 August 2025) Tshipu v Bryte Insurance Company Limited and Another (Leave to Appeal) (056972/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 845 (11 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_845.html sino date 11 August 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No: 056972/2024 (1)      REPORTABLE: (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: (3)      REVISED: DATE 11 August 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: TSHIPU KLEINBOOI NGAKO Applicant and BRYTE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED First Respondent MOBILITY INSURANCE UNDERWRITING MANAGERS 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 / 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. LEAVE TO APPEAL RETIEF J INTRODUCTION [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 which 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] . Notwithstanding, 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 misdirection’s of law or fact upon which the Applicant relies on. However in argument the Applicant’s Counsel  crystallised the grounds for the Court and argued that the Applicant 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 weight 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 November 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 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 met 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. L.A. RETIEF Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division Appearances : For the Applicant: Adv:             D B Melaphi Cell:             061 631 9358 Email: daniel@advmelaphi.co.za Instructed by attorneys: Attorneys:    ME Makgopa Attorneys Tel:               071 209 3448 Email:           Admin@makgopaattorneys.co.za Ref:              MR NGAKO/T4/2024 For the First Respondent Adv:              F J Erasmus SC Tel:               012 947 9426 Email:           frik@clubadvocates.co.za Instructed by attorneys: Attorneys:     Prinsloo Attorneys Tel:               012 329 7126 Email: adam@prinsloo.co.za ansie@prinsloo.co.za For the Second Respondent Adv:              F J Erasmus SC Tel:               012 947 9426 Email:           frik@clubadvocates.co.za Instructed by attorneys: Attorneys:     Prinsloo Attorneys Tel:               012 329 7126 Email: adama@prinsloo.co.za ansie@prinsloo.co.za Date of argument: 31 July 2024 Date of judgment : 11 August 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start