Mbabane – The High Court has ordered Eswatini Royal Insurance Corporation to pay transport operator Linda Sukati, trading as Status Transport, E200,000 after finding that the company unlawfully caused his repaired truck to be detained at a panel beater’s workshop.
At the same time, the court dismissed Sukati’s first claim in which he alleged that the insurer was responsible for long delays in the repair of his commercial vehicle after a 2014 accident.
Judge E.W. Magagula said Sukati failed to prove that the insurer selected the repairer or breached the insurance contract in relation to the first claim, but succeeded on the second claim where the repaired vehicle was withheld for about 47 days after a later accident.
The plaintiff had sued for E1.1 million in damages. He said his truck, which was used for sugar-cane haulage, was one of the main income-generating assets of his business and that its prolonged absence caused heavy financial loss.
The insurer, based at Lilunga House on Somhlolo Road in Mbabane, disputed liability on both claims.
The court heard that the dispute arose from a special motor fleet policy covering the truck and trailers. The policy, which was arranged through Sekusile Insurance Brokers, gave the insurer the option to repair, reinstate or replace the vehicle, or pay cash for the loss. It also required the insured to pay an excess on each claim.
The first claim related to an accident on 8 December 2014 on the Maphobeni-Big Bend road in the Lubombo Region. Sukati said the truck was comprehensively insured and that the insurer accepted liability after the accident. He told the court that body repairs were to be done by Auto Metal Panel Beaters, but that he had agreed with the insurer’s assessor, Bongani Simelane, that all engine repairs would be carried out by Motruck Swaziland, the authorised dealer, because the vehicle was still under warranty.
According to Sukati, Auto Metal Panel Beaters finished the bodywork by the end of March 2015, but then went on, without his authority, to work on the engine. He said those attempts failed and the truck later had to be moved to Motruck Swaziland for corrective work, which was only completed in September 2015. He claimed the delay left the truck out of commercial use for about four months and caused a loss of E800,000.
The insurer denied that it had directed the repairer or selected the workshop. It said the plaintiff’s broker chose Auto Metal Panel Beaters and arranged for Precision Engineering to handle the engine repairs, with Motruck Swaziland involved only for testing and verification. The insurer denied liability for the claimed loss.
Sukati also told the court that after the first claim, the excess was initially assessed at E101,000 but was later reduced following negotiations. The parties then signed an acknowledgement of debt regulating payment of the outstanding excess by instalments.
The second claim arose from another accident involving the same vehicle on 6 December 2015 near Malagwane on the Mbabane-Manzini highway. Sukati said the vehicle was repaired by Mbabane Panel Beaters and that he paid an excess of E20,726.04. He expected the repaired truck to be released once payment had been made.
Instead, he said the truck was not handed over because the insurer instructed the repairer not to release it on the grounds that an earlier excess from the 2014 claim was still outstanding. He said the vehicle remained at the workshop for 47 days and was only released after the insurer’s general manager, Zama Ngcobo, intervened.
Sukati argued that the insurer had unlawfully resorted to self-help. He said the acknowledgement of debt already regulated the repayment of the earlier excess and that the insurer had remedies under that agreement if he defaulted, but no right to retain his vehicle.
The insurer denied that it ordered the workshop to hold the vehicle. It said Mbabane Panel Beaters exercised a garage lien because an amount was still owing and that the payment made by Sukati was lawfully appropriated to the earlier debt.
During the trial, the court heard evidence from Sukati and from the insurer’s witnesses, assessor Bongani Simelane and claims official Lulu Gule.
Sukati testified that he had not chosen Auto Metal Panel Beaters for the engine work and that he never authorised Precision Engineering to repair the engine. He said the repair arrangement was discussed with Simelane and that the insurer later allowed the wrong workshop to work on the engine, causing unnecessary delay.
He further said he was never told before paying the second excess that the money would be allocated to the first claim. He insisted that the payment was made specifically for the second accident and that he only learned of the alleged appropriation when he went to collect the truck.
In cross-examination, Sukati maintained that the insurer was responsible for the repair decisions and that the long delay was caused by the failed engine work. He also said the acknowledgement of debt did not give the insurer the right to withhold his truck. If he defaulted, he said, the company had to pursue legal remedies.
Simelane told the court that his role was limited to assessing the damaged vehicle and reporting back to the insurer. He said the repairer was not selected by him and that the insurer’s procedure was that the insured, usually through the broker, chose the workshop. He said Auto Metal Panel Beaters was authorised because the claim documents reflected that arrangement.
He said Auto Metal Panel Beaters later reported that the engine was not running, and that Precision Engineering, a neighbouring workshop, was suggested to assist with the mechanical work. He told the court that Precision Engineering removed the engine, stripped it, ordered parts from Motruck, repaired the engine and put it back.
Simelane said the problem only became clear when the engine still would not start after the repairs because a crack in the bell housing affected the pickup sensor. He said a meeting was later held involving the insurer, the broker, the repairers and the plaintiff, after which the truck was taken to Motruck Swaziland for further work.
Gule said the insurer did not select repairers and that the insured, through the broker, did so. She said the insurer merely processed the claim after quotations were submitted. She also testified that the Plaintiff was informed before payment that the E20,726.04 would be allocated to the earlier excess and that the vehicle could not be released until the second excess was settled.
The court found that Sukati had not proved that the insurer selected Auto Metal Panel Beaters or Precision Engineering, or that it breached the contract by directing the engine repairs contrary to an agreement that Motruck Swaziland would do the work. Judge Magagula said the contemporaneous documents did not support the plaintiff’s version and there was no written instruction or other documentary proof showing that the insurer had directed the repairer to perform the engine repairs.
The court also said the plaintiff failed to prove that the insurer was liable for the delay in the first claim. While the insurer was actively involved in monitoring the progress of repairs, approving quotations and communicating with the repairers, that did not by itself show that it had assumed legal responsibility for every technical decision taken during the repair process.
Judge Magagula said the evidence also failed to show that the insurer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the repair strategy had become untenable at an earlier stage and still failed to act. The court noted that there was no expert evidence on accepted repair protocols for heavy commercial vehicles or on whether the attempted engine repairs were technically inappropriate from the outset.
On damages under the first claim, the court held that the invoices produced by Sukati reflected gross revenue and not net profit. They did not show the actual expenses that would have been incurred in earning the income, including fuel, wages, maintenance, tyres and other running costs. The court said the plaintiff therefore failed to prove the quantum of the alleged loss of E800,000.
The second claim, however, succeeded. The court said the evidence showed that the vehicle was withheld after the second repairs were completed and that the insurer had no legal basis to keep the truck as security for the earlier excess, particularly in light of the acknowledgement of debt already in place.
The court rejected the insurer’s argument that Mbabane Panel Beaters exercised an independent garage lien. It said the totality of the evidence, including the conduct of the insurer’s officials and the intervention by the general manager before release of the truck, pointed to the insurer exercising effective control over whether the vehicle would be returned to the plaintiff.
Judge Magagula said the insurer should have used the remedies available under the acknowledgement of debt or approached the court if it believed Sukati was in breach. It was not entitled to create a new remedy by keeping the repaired truck.
The court found that the insurer unlawfully caused or procured the continued detention of the vehicle.
On the amount to be awarded, the court said Sukati had not proved the exact profit lost during the 47-day detention. But it accepted that the truck was a revenue-generating commercial asset and that some loss had been suffered. Using the evidence before it, including previous haulage invoices, the court made a reasonable estimate and awarded E200,000.
The court said the case showed the difference between enforcing contractual rights and taking the law into one’s own hands. It added that active involvement by an insurer in the claims process does not automatically make it liable for every delay or defect during repairs, but that self-help is not permitted where contractual and legal remedies exist.
Claim A was dismissed. Judgment was granted for Sukati on Claim B in the reduced amount of E200,000, with interest at the prescribed legal rate from the date of judgment. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Discussion about this post