Muller v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited

The appellant, Pieter Johannes Muller, claimed payment of benefits under four life insurance policies issued by Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd in respect of his former wife, who died on 3 September 2006. Muller was the owner of two policies and the beneficiary of two others. Although aware of the death and the existence of the policies, Muller only instituted application proceedings in the Western Cape High Court on 10 May 2011, almost five years later, claiming approximately R8.8 million. Sanlam raised several defences, including prescription. The High Court separated the prescription issue, heard oral evidence, and found that the claim had prescribed. Muller was granted leave to appeal but failed to comply timeously with the Supreme Court of Appeal’s procedural rules, resulting in a significantly delayed application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal.

The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appeal was struck from the roll.

The case reaffirms strict principles governing condonation for non-compliance with appellate rules in the Supreme Court of Appeal. Substantively, it clarifies that prescription in insurance matters runs from the death of the insured when the beneficiary has knowledge of the policy, not from repudiation of the claim, and that later regulatory changes cannot revive prescribed debts.