THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No: 934/2019
In the matter between:
INGOSSTRAKH

APPELLANT

and

GLOBAL AVIATION INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD

FIRST RESPONDENT
GLOBAL AVIATION INVESTMENTS
GROUP (BVI) LTD

SECOND RESPONDENT
GLOBAL AVIATION OPERATIONS (PTY) LTD

THIRD RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Ingosstrakh v Global Aviation Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others
(934/2019) [2021] ZASCA 69 (4 June 2021)
Coram:
MBHA, DAMBUZA and MAKGOKA JJA and MABINDLA-BOQWANA and
UNTERHALTER AJJA

Heard:
22 February 2021

Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
representatives by email, and by publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal website
and release to SAFLII. The time and date for hand down is deemed to be 10h00 on the
4th day of June 2021.

Summary: Civil Procedure – default judgment – appellant under bar – whether good
cause shown for upliftment thereof.

Contract – jurisdiction – where a foreign peregrinus defendant submits to jurisdiction of a
South African court at the suit of a foreign peregrinus plaintiff, such submission and a
ground of jurisdiction that links the court to the subject matter of the litigation, sufficient
for a South African court to assume jurisdiction.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (Moshidi J sitting as
court of first instance):
1 The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
2 The cross-appeal is upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where so
employed.
3 The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following:
a)  Default judgment is granted against the respondent in favour of the applicants
in the sum of US$ 2 500 000;
b) Interest on the above amount at the prescribed rate from 13 November 2012 to
date of payment;
c) Costs of the suit.
______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Makgoka JA (Mbha, Dambuza JJA and Mabindla-Boqwana and Unterhalter AJJA
concurring):
[1] This appeal concerns a decision of the court a quo, the Gauteng Division of the
High Court, dismissing, respectively, the respondents’ application for default judgment
and the appellant’s (Ingosstrakh) application for condonation of the late filing of its plea.
In the court a quo, the respondents, Global Aviation Investments (Pty) Ltd; Global Aviation
Investments Group (Pty) Ltd; and Global Aviation Operations (Pty) Ltd, were the
applicants and Ingosstrakh the respondent. For the sake of convenience, I refer to the
respondents collectively as ‘Global’, except where it is necessary to identify one of them
specifically.

[2] The dispute arises from a written insurance policy (the policy) concluded in
October 2012 between Global and associated companies, on the one hand, and
Ingosstrakh, on the other. Ingosstrakh is a Russian company, with its registered address
in Moscow. In terms of the policy, Ingosstrakh undertook to indemnify Global against all
risks of loss or damage occasioned to certain specified aircraft, whilst in flight, taxiing or
on the ground.
[3] Among the insured aircraft, was Global’s MD82 aircraft with registration marks ZS-
TOG (the aircraft), which was insured for the agreed sum of US $2 500 000. The policy
provided, among other things, that in the event the cost of repair to damage caused to
the aircraft exceed 75% of the insured value of the aircraft, Global would be entitled to
regard the aircraft as a constructive total loss (CTL), and Ingosstrakh would be obliged to
pay Global the full insured value of US$2 500 000. I shall return to the relevant clause of
the policy.
[4] On 13 November 2012, whilst the policy was of full effect, the aircraft could not
take-off from OR Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg, as the pilot received a
cockpit warning of a landing gear anomaly. Both engines of the aircraft had ingested non-
organic foreign matter while under full power, causing severe damage to the aircraft. The
damage caused by the incident to the aircraft constituted a risk insured against in terms
of the policy. Global declared the aircraft to be a CTL in terms of the policy. It notified
Ingosstrakh of the incident and demanded payment of US $2 500 000. Ingosstrakh
refused to pay on the basis that the aircraft was not a total loss.
[5] Consequently, on 15 August 2014 Global launched an application against
Ingosstrakh seeking an order declaring Ingosstrakh to be liable to indemnify it in terms of
the policy following the incident on 13 November 2012, and for payment of US
$2 500 000. Ingosstrakh opposed the application. The application was eventually
dismissed on 25 May 2015 on the basis that there were material disputes of fact on the
papers. Although Global applied for leave to appeal that order, there is no clarity as to the
status of that application.

[6] In terms of the policy, notices on Ingosstrakh were to be served on Steve Slatter
Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd (Slatter) in Durban, South Africa. Thus, before Global issued
summons against Ingosstrakh, it sought, and obtained, an order on 8 September 2015 in
the court a quo authorising service of the summons on Ingosstrakh, care of Slatter.

[7] On 9 September 2015 Global issued summons against Ingosstrakh, which was
served on Slatter by the sheriff on 10 September 2015.1 On 30 September 2015,
Ingosstrakh served its notice of intention to defend the action. However, Ingosstrakh failed
to deliver its plea, and on 4 November 2015 Global served a notice of bar in terms of rule
26 of the Uniform Rules of Court, in terms of which Ingosstrakh was afforded five days to
deliver its plea. That period would have expired on 11 November 2015. On 10 November
2015, Ingosstrakh, without delivering its plea, served an application in which it sought an
order:
(a) Setting aside the order of 8 September 2015 authorising summons to be served on
Slatter, as well as the subsequent service of the summons on Slatter on 9 September
2015; and
(b) Uplifting the notice of bar served on 4 November 2015.

[8] Global opposed the application, which was eventually dismissed on 2 September
2016. Ingosstrakh was ordered to pay Global’s costs, including costs of two counsel, on
the scale as between attorney and client. In the wake of that judgment, on 5 September
2016 Global’s attorneys, via email, drew the attention of Ingosstrakh’s attorneys to the
fact that Ingosstrakh was ipso facto barred from delivering its plea, as the period for doing

1 In addition to the US $2 500 000 referred to already, Global also claimed consequential damages (in
respect only of the third respondent, Global Aviation Operations), for US $170 245.24. Global alleged that
as a result of Ingosstrakh failing to make payment in respect of the total loss of the aircraft, the third
respondent was unable to replace the aircraft with a substitute aircraft, and also lost income which would
have been earned by the third respondent from such substitute aircraft. This claim was abandoned in the
court a quo and accordingly is not in issue in this appeal.

so had expired on 11 November 2015 in terms of the notice of bar. It was enquired as to
Ingosstrakh’s intentions. There was no response to the email.
[9] On 27 September 2016 Global launched an application for default judgment
against Ingosstrakh, which opposed the application. Ingosstrakh also delivered a counter-
application, in terms of which it sought, in prayer 1, that the judgment of 2 September
2016 be ‘considered in relation to whether there was an obvious omission in failing to deal
with [its prayer for the uplifting the notice of bar].’ In the alternative, Ingosstrakh sought
an order that ‘the court supplement the judgment to deal with the oversight in relation to
the alternative relief sought by [Ingosstrakh] in its application.’ Alternatively, Ingosstrakh
sought an order uplifting the notice of bar served on 4 November 2015, and condoning
the late delivery of its plea.2 Global opposed Ingosstrakh’s counter-application.
[10] The applications were heard on 26 April 2018.  In a judgment delivered on 31 July
2018, the court a quo considered it an ‘unfair procedure’ for Global to seek default
judgment, ‘in the midst of protracted litigation’ between the parties, and long after the
entry of appearance to defend. The court also said that there were disputed issues, both
of a factual and technical nature, which could only be resolved by expert evidence in a
trial. Furthermore, the court mentioned that Global’s decision not to proceed with the
default judgment in respect of claim B was a further reason to refuse the application, as
the court considered the two claims interlinked.

[11] With regard to Ingosstrakh’s counter-application for the ‘clarification’ and
‘supplementation’ of the order of 2 September 2016, and for condonation of the late filing
of its plea, the court summarily dismissed it, stating that it ‘lacked any basis’ and was
‘misplaced’ as, so the court reasoned, it did not ‘have the requisite appellate/review
jurisdiction to interfere therewith.’ Accordingly, the court dismissed both applications. The
parties are each aggrieved by the orders, and with the leave of the court a quo, they both
appeal to this Court against the dismissal of their respective applications.

2 An unsigned and undated version of Ingosstrakh’s plea was served on 26 October 2016.

[12] There is a preliminary issue to consider. It is whether the order refusing Global’s
application for default judgment is appealable. Appealability of an order is determined by,
amongst other considerations, whether it is final in effect. In Zweni v Minister of Law and
Order3 it was held that such an order has three attributes: first, it must be final in effect
and not susceptible to alteration by the court that made it; second, it must be definitive of
the rights of the parties; and third, it must have the effect of disposing of at least a
substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings.
[13] In the present case, the practical effect of the court a quo’s order is that the parties’
respective applications are in limbo. In refusing to grant default judgment, the court a quo
alluded to the fact that the issues between the parties needed to be ventilated in a trial.
However, in the same breath, it dismissed Ingosstrakh’s application for the upliftment of
the bar, thus effectively closing any avenue for a trial. The result is that Ingosstrakh is
unable to enter the main case, because it is under bar, while Global is unable to obtain
default judgment against Ingosstrakh.
[14] If the court a quo’s order that Ingosstrakh was not entitled to the upliftment of the
bar is correct, logic dictates that Global’s application for default judgment should have
been considered. Conversely, if the court a quo was of the view that the issues warranted
a trial, it should have granted Ingosstrakh’s counter-application to uplift the bar. Viewed
in this light, the court a quo’s order suffers from an internal contradiction, resulting in an
untenable position for both parties. The first duty of a court is to resolve the dispute before
it. That was not done by the court a quo.  The interests of justice require this court’s
intervention to resolve the impasse. On this basis, the matter is appealable. Furthermore,

3 Zweni v Minister of Law and Order [1993] 1 All SA 365 (A); 1993 (1) SA 523 (A) at 536B. Zweni has
undergone some modification over the years. See for example Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American
Express Travel Service 1996 (3) SA 1 (A); Philani-Ma-Afrika and Others v Mailula and Others [2009] ZASCA
115; [2010] 1 All SA 459 (SCA); 2010 (2) SA 573 (SCA); Nova Property Group Holdings Limited v Cobbett
and Others [2016] ZASCA 63; [2016] 3 All SA 32 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA). However, none of these
find application in this case.

given the circuitous and the considerable length of time the case has taken, it is in the
interest of justice that the litigation between the parties be brought to finality.
[15] Before Ingosstrakh’s contentions are considered, it has to contend with the fact
that it is under bar from delivering its plea. As stated already, Global’s notice of bar was
served on 4 November 2015, affording Ingosstrakh five days in which to file its plea. The
last day for it to do so was 11 November 2015. It did not do so. Instead, it launched the
application to set aside the service of summons. As a result, as from 11 November 2015,
Ingosstrakh has been under bar. The effect thereof is that unless and until the bar is
uplifted, Ingosstrakh has no right to deliver its plea. Its application for the upliftment of the
bar was dismissed on 2 September 2016. There is no appeal against that order.

[16] It was submitted before us on behalf of Ingosstrakh that the court a quo in its
judgment of 2 September 2016 did not consider its prayer to uplift the bar. It is so that the
court did not expressly address the prayer for upliftment of the bar. But it is clear from a
proper reading of the judgment as a whole that the court considered the totality of the
application to be unmeritorious.  What is clear, however, is that Ingosstrakh’s prayer for
the upliftment of the bar was dismissed. If Ingosstrakh was aggrieved with the order, the
proper course was to appeal against it. It elected not to do so. The effect thereof is that
Ingosstrakh remains barred from pleading.
[17] Global submitted that the question whether Ingosstrakh may competently file its
plea has been finally disposed in the judgment of 2 September 2016, and is thus res
judicata. A matter is res judicata if in the previous proceedings, the issue adjudicated
upon was for the same cause, between the same parties and the same thing was
demanded. See Smith v Porritt and Others 2008 (6) SA 303 (SCA) para 10 in which a
flexible approach was adopted to the doctrine of res judicata. That approach was
approved by the Constitutional Court in S v Molaudzi [2015] ZACC 20; 2015 (2) SACR
341 (CC) paras 22 and 23.

[18] To consider whether this threshold has been met in the present case, it is
necessary to examine Ingosstrakh’s applications of 10 November 2015 in respect of
which this appeal pertains. Part of the relief in the November 2015 application (in prayer
3 of the notice of motion) was that ‘[T]he notice of bar served by [Global] on [Ingosstrakh]
on 3 November 2015 be uplifted.’ In its counter-application to Global’s application for
default judgment, Ingosstrakh sought (in prayer 2.1 of the notice of motion) an order
‘[u]plifting the notice of bar served by [Global] on [Ingosstrakh] on 3 November 2015’.
[19] It becomes immediately evident that the relief common in both the November 2015
application and the counter-application was for the same thing, namely, the upliftment of
the notice of bar. It is irrelevant that in the counter-application, such relief was paired with
a prayer for condonation of the late delivery of Ingosstrakh’s plea. The true nature of the
relief sought was not altered by pinning a new label on the counter-application. In both
applications, the same reasons were advanced in support of the relief sought. During
argument before us, counsel for Ingosstrakh fairly conceded that conceptually, the latter
appellation would make no difference as the desired outcome is the same, ie to remove
the impediment which prevents Ingosstrakh from delivering its plea.
[20] To sum up on this point, the issue whether Ingosstrakh is entitled to the upliftment
of the notice of bar has been determined in the judgment of 2 September 2016, in terms
of which its prayer to that effect was dismissed. It follows that Ingosstrakh was not entitled
to seek the same relief under the rubric of ‘condonation for the late delivery of its plea.’
The court a quo was undoubtedly correct in dismissing the relief sought by Ingosstrakh
for it to reconsider or supplement the judgment of 2 September 2016.  The application
was ill-advised and the relief sought was incompetent. In all circumstances, the order
made by the court on 2 September 2016 stands.  The issue is res judicata and Ingosstrakh
is barred from filing its plea. That should ordinarily be the end of the matter, and would
entitle Global to have their application for default judgment adjudicated upon. However,

to put the matter beyond doubt I will consider, in Ingosstrakh’s favour, whether it would
be entitled to condonation for its failure to file a plea,4 to which I now turn.
[21] Rule 27 of the uniform rules deals with the extension of time, removal of bar and
condonation. In terms of rule 27(3) the court may, on good cause shown, condone any
non-compliance with the rules. Thus, in order to succeed in this regard, Ingosstrakh would
be expected to show good cause why condonation should be granted for its failure to
deliver its plea. Generally, the concept of ‘good cause’ entails a consideration of the
following factors:  a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the default; a
demonstration that a party is acting bona fide; and that such party has a bona fide defence
which prima facie has some prospect of success.5 Good cause requires a full explanation
of the default so that the court may assess the explanation.6 I consider each of the above
requisites, in turn.
[22] With regard to the explanation for the default, there are two periods of default which
Ingosstrakh must explain for its failure to deliver a plea. The first is before the notice of
bar was served on it, and the second relates to the period after the bar was served. This
is because the notice of bar was served as a consequence of Ingosstrakh’s failure to file
its plea. With regard to the former, Ingosstrakh served its notice of intention to defend the
action on 30 September 2015. It therefore had up to 28 October 2015 to file its plea. There
is simply no explanation whatsoever why a plea was not filed during that period.
[23] As to the period after the notice of bar, it was submitted on behalf of Ingosstrakh
that the delay in delivering the plea must not be calculated from 10 November 20157, but

4 This is in line with S v Jordaan & Others (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force & Others as
amici curiae, 2002 (6) SA 642; 2002 (11) BCLR 1117 (CC) para 21 where it was held that where a provision
or decision is attacked on one ground that is considered decisive of the matter, the other grounds raised in
the matter should nevertheless be ventilated and decided upon for the benefit of a court that may later have
to hear an appeal arising from that matter.
5 Colyn v Tiger Food Industries Limited t/a Meadow Feed Mills (Cape) [2003] 2 All SA 113 (SCA); 2003 (6)
SA 1 (SCA) para 11; Chetty v Law Society Transvaal 1985 (2) SA 756 (A) at 764J-765E.
6 Silber v Ozen Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd 1954 (2) SA 354A at 353A.
7 Expiry of the period set in the notice of bar.

from a ‘reasonable period’ following the judgment of 2 September 2016, to allow it time
to consider that judgment. This, it was contended, was because Ingosstrakh seriously
pursued that application and had legitimate grounds for doing so. This is an untenable
proposition. Ingosstrakh does not enjoy the latitude to decide when a properly filed notice
of bar takes effect. The fact is, when Ingosstrakh took a conscious decision to ignore the
notice of bar, and instead launched the application to set aside the service of summons,
it did so at its peril. It should have known that if that application did not succeed, it would
remain under bar. It took the risk of its procedural gamesmanship and must now live with
the consequences of its decision.
[24] But even if one accepts its proposition, Ingosstrakh still falls short. There were only
two options open to it post the judgment, namely to appeal against the order or to file its
plea. It had 14 days from 2 September 2016 to seek leave to appeal. That period expired
on 22 September 2016. Ingosstrakh did nothing in that regard. On expiry of that period,
the only remaining option was to deliver a plea. The five-day period in the notice of bar
would have commenced on 23 September, and expired on 29 September 2016. Similarly,
Ingosstrakh did nothing in this regard, and there is no explanation for its inactivity. This is
significant, considering that as early as 5 September 2016 Global, had enquired from
Ingosstrakh what it intended to do, without any response.
[25] Ingosstrakh sought to rely on ‘without prejudice’ discussions between the
respective legal representatives for its supine attitude. Such discussions and
negotiations, however cannot, substitute the obligation to comply with set time frames for
the exchange of pleadings, unless the parties have agreed to suspend the relevant time
periods. There was no such agreement in the present case. It is also significant that until
Global applied for default judgment, Ingosstrakh was content to sit back and do nothing
about filing its plea, for which there is no explanation. In sum, Ingosstrakh’s conduct in
this matter shows inexcusable default and a failure to give a proper explanation therefor.
I have demonstrated this in relation to its conduct both before and after the notice of bar
was served. This calls into question its bona fides, an aspect to which I next turn.

[26] In the course of its judgment of 2 September 2016, the court made adverse findings
against Ingosstrakh for its motive in bringing that application. Its true motive, the court
found, was a disguised and contrived attempt to introduce prescription as a defence to
the action, a fact expressly conceded by Ingosstrakh’s counsel. The court said:
‘The application was misconceived from the onset. The papers filed extend into almost 200 pages.
Unsustainable arguments on behalf of Ingosstrakh were advanced. The proceedings undoubtedly
are vexatious and constitute an abuse of process of court. The reprehensible conduct of
Ingosstrakh to obtain an ulterior tactical advantage warrants this court’s censure in ordering
punitive costs [. . .]’
This put paid to any suggestion by Ingosstrakh that the application was pursued bona
fide. Nothing more needs to be said about this.
[27] Lastly, under the rubric of ‘good cause’, I consider whether Ingosstrakh has
disclosed a bona fide defence to Global’s claim. I commence with what would be a special
plea of jurisdiction, contained in its draft plea. Its premise is this. Both Global Aviation
Operations (the second respondent) and Ingosstrakh are foreign peregrini, of the British
Virgin Islands and Russia, respectively. Clause 8 of the policy provides that it is governed
by the laws of the insured (Global Aviation Operation’s) country of domicile (the British
Virgin Islands) and each party agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts
of the insured’s country of domicile in any dispute arising from the policy.
[28] It was thus submitted on behalf of Ingosstrakh that the court a quo did not have
jurisdiction to determine the dispute as between the second respondent and Ingosstrakh.
Global argued that Ingosstrakh had submitted to the court a quo’s jurisdiction. Both
parties being foreign peregrini, the leading authority is Veneta Mineraria SPA v Carolina
Collieries (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) 1987 (4) SA 883 (A). The case concerned a dispute
between an Italian company (a foreign peregrinus plaintiff) and a Transvaal company, a
peregrinus of Natal, but an incola of the Transvaal (a local peregrinus). The defendant
company had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Durban and Coast Local Division.  This
Court held that such submission did not suffice to clothe the Natal court with jurisdiction,
as one or more of the traditional grounds of jurisdiction must also be present. As there

was no traditional ground of jurisdiction present, the submission of the defendant did not
confer jurisdiction on the court. It was explained (at 894A-B):
‘This dictum [in The Owners, Master and Crew of the SS Humber v The Owners and Master of
the SS Answald 1912 AD 546 at 554] again emphasises the principle that in addition to the
machinery of arrest (which, in the case of a local peregrinus, is dispensed with by law) something
more is required before a Court can take cognizance of a matter in its area of jurisdiction. By
prorogation a defendant subjects his person to the jurisdiction of the Court, but that is not enough.
One or more of the traditional grounds of jurisdiction must also be present.’

[29] Following Veneta, the position is as follows: the submission of a local peregrinus
defendant does not suffice, without more, to establish jurisdiction at the suit of a foreign
peregrinus plaintiff. Since it is not competent to attach the property of a local peregrinus
defendant, in addition to submission, what is required is a ground of jurisdiction that
establishes a link between the court and the subject matter of the litigation. In a
contractual claim sounding in money that link will be provided by the fact that the contract
was concluded or performance is to be rendered within the area of jurisdiction of the court.
In Hay Management Consultants Ltd v P3 Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd [2005] 3
All SA 119 (SCA) it was held, with reference to American Flag,8 that submission to the
jurisdiction of the court by a foreign peregrinus defendant in an action for money brought
by an incola plaintiff was of itself sufficient for the court to assume jurisdiction. There was

8 American Flag plc v Great African T-Shirt Corporation CC; American Flag plc v Great African T-Shirt
Corporation CC: In re Ex parte Great African T-Shirt Corporation CC 2000 (1) SA 356 (W). There,
a peregrine of the Republic instituted an action in a local division against a South African close corporation
based on an acknowledgment of debt. The defendant defended the action and signalled its intention to
institute a counterclaim against the plaintiff. It also applied for the attachment of the plaintiff’s claim ad
fundandam jurisdictionem. One of the issues was whether, despite the plaintiff’s submission to the court’s
jurisdiction, in the absence of a ratio jurisdictionis, such submission was effective to confer jurisdiction on
the Court. A specially constituted Full Bench embarked on a comprehensive survey of the authorities, and
held that it had always been our law that actions by incolae against peregrine defendants could be
entertained solely on the ground of the defendant's submission to the jurisdiction of the court (at 449). The
court distinguished Veneta on the basis that case there was no link at all between the Court and the matter,
since both parties were peregrini and the cause of action did not arise within the court's area of jurisdiction.
The court concluded that since American Flag had consented to the jurisdiction of the court, attachment
was neither necessary nor permissible.

no need for the incola plaintiff to attach the property of the foreign peregrinus defendant
to found jurisdiction.
[30] In the present matter, a foreign peregrinus plaintiff (the second respondent)
brought proceedings against a foreign peregrinus defendant (Ingosstrakh).  Here, unlike
the position in Veneta, it would have been competent to attach the property of
Ingosstrakh, but is such attachment necessary for the court to enjoy jurisdiction? In my
view, if a foreign peregrinus defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court, and a
ground of jurisdiction is established that links the court to the subject matter of the
litigation, that will suffice for the court to assume jurisdiction. This is so because once a
foreign peregrinus defendant has submitted to jurisdiction, an effective basis is
established to enforce a judgment that might issue against such a defendant. This follows
because submission is universally recognised as the basis upon which the courts of one
country recognise the judgments of another. Attachment in these circumstances is
unnecessary.
[31] There are forceful arguments reflected in the academic literature that would
recognise submission alone by the defendant in a suit between a foreign peregrinus
plaintiff and a foreign peregrinus defendant as sufficient for the court to assume
jurisdiction.9 However, it is not necessary for us to express a firm view on this matter. In
the present case, unlike the position in Veneta, apart from the issue of submission, there
is a ground of jurisdiction that links the subject matter of the litigation to the court a quo –
the insurance policy was concluded in Johannesburg.
[32] It follows that, if Ingosstrakh submitted to the jurisdiction of the court a quo, that
court enjoyed jurisdiction because, in addition to submission, the contract of insurance

9 See for example Forsyth, Private International Law, 4 ed 215-6, cited with approval in Hay Management
para 17, and an article by the same author in (2006) 18 SA Merc LJ. See also John Peter ‘Consent
Confusion but no Effect’ in (1993) 110 SALJ 15 at 20.

was concluded within its area of jurisdiction. On this basis, Ingosstrakh’s defence, at least
as between Ingosstrakh and the second respondent, must fail as a matter of law.
[33] What remains to be determined is whether Ingosstrakh submitted to the court a
quo’s jurisdiction. This is a factual question in which the court considers whether the
cumulative effect of the proved facts established submission on a balance of probabilities.
See Hay Management para 13. In the present case, I consider that Ingosstrakh had
selected a domicilium for service of process in this country. In Beverley Building Society
v De Courcy and Another 1964 (4) SA 264 (SR) at 270 C-E and Standard Bank v Butlin
1981 (4) SA 158 (D (at 164D-F) this was recognised as a significant factor leaning
towards submission, although in the latter case, it was held on the specific facts of that
case that the defendant had not submitted to the jurisdiction.
[34] In addition, Ingosstrakh has been involved in at least three substantive applications
in the court a quo in respect of the policy in issue. In two of those it was the respondent,
and filed a counter-application in one of them. Not once did Ingosstrakh object to the
jurisdiction of the court a quo. The third application, the one to set aside the order
authorising service on Slatter, was at Ingosstrakh’s instance. On these facts, I consider
Ingosstrakh to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court a quo.
[35] It is also important to consider the business relationship between the parties, as
well as the convenience of a South African court hearing and determining this matter. The
second respondent’s associated companies, ie the first and third respondents, are
incolae. In Estate Agent Board v Lek 1979 (3) SA 1048 (A) it was held that ‘convenience
and common sense’ are, are among others, valid considerations in determining whether
a particular division has jurisdiction to hear and determine a particular case.
[36] In the leading English case of The Eleftheria [1969] 2 All ER 641 the court listed
number of factors as relevant when considering whether an English court should hear a
matter, among which is whether a defendant genuinely desires a trial in the foreign
country, or is only seeking procedural advantages. In this case, it must be borne in mind

that Ingosstrakh has already been found in the court a quo to have sought improperly to
gain a tactical advantage, as fully explained in para 26 above. It is definitely not raising
the question of jurisdiction to have the matter decided in the British Virgin Islands. For all
these considerations, Ingosstrakh’s jurisdiction point has no merit.
[37] Ingosstrakh set much store by the judgment of 26 May 2015, referred to more
fully earlier in para 5. It was contended that the judgment rendered certain issues res
judicata between the parties. To consider this issue, it is helpful to delineate the issues
which occupied the court’s mind in that case. The court was concerned with the proper
interpretation of clause 3(b) and in particular, Global’s assertion that it, as the insured,
was exclusively entitled to declare the aircraft a total loss once the aircraft was damaged
(paras 11, 12 and 17). The court found that the clause did not preclude Ingosstrakh from
also providing estimates of what the cost of repair would be. The court also dealt with
Global’s contention that only Global Maintenance was entitled to provide a quote for the
cost of repair to the aircraft, as it had the necessary accreditation at the time when the
aircraft was damaged. The court rejected this argument and accepted that Ingosstrakh
was entitled to obtain a quote from an AMO which had only obtained accreditation after
the event (at para 13).
[38] The court thereafter dealt with the issue of compromise. Global had contended
that its claim had been compromised. It had relied on a paragraph in the affidavit of Mr
Van der Merwe, an aviation surveyor appointed by Ingosstrakh to assist in the evaluation
of the damage and to investigate further. In the final paragraph of his report dated 28
December 2012, he stated the following:
‘Subject to the underwriter’s agreement we recommend a loss reserve be established on the basis
of a constructive total loss. We additionally recommend a fee reserve of £8 000. We trust the
above and aforementioned is found to be in order and look forward to receiving underwriter’s
return comments accordingly. In the mean-time our investigations continue with further reports to
follow.’
Suffice it to say that Global’s contention was rejected, it is not necessary to delve into the
court’s reasons for that conclusion.

[39] Lastly, the court considered whether there was a dispute of fact. It concluded (at
para 25) that given Global’s assertion that Ingosstrakh’s AMO or expert had not actually
inspected the aircraft meant ‘that it would be impossible on these papers as they stand to
make a finding that the aircraft was in fact a CTL and therefore exceeded the seventy five
percent of the agreed value between the parties.’ (emphasis added.)

[40] It must be clear from this overview of the court’s judgment that it considered totally
different issues to those in the present application. The only issue which Global asserted
in both applications is one of compromise. I am prepared to assume, without deciding,
that that issue is indeed res judicata. But that does not assist Ingosstrakh. We do not
decide the appeal on the basis of that issue.

[41] The ruling by a court that there is a material dispute of fact is a procedural issue.
It does not finally resolve any substantive issues between the parties. It can therefore not
form the basis of a res judicata defence. In any event, as I pointed out earlier, the main
reason for that ruling was Global’s assertion that Ingosstrakh’s expert had not inspected
the aircraft. The court understandably, and correctly took a view that it could not resolve
that issue on the papers.  Global makes no such assertion in the present application.
[42] Viewed in the light of the above considerations, the court’s judgment of 26 May
2015 poses no hurdle for this Court to decide the substantive issues between the parties.
None of the substantive issues in this judgment were considered in that judgment.
Ingosstrakh’s reliance on that judgment is misplaced.
[43] I turn now to the basis of Ingosstrakh’s refusal to pay the full insured amount. The
starting point in this enquiry is clause 3(b) of the policy, which provides:
‘A total loss may be declared under this insurance, at the option of the insured, in the event that
the cost of repair of the damage together with the cost of salvage and/or transport from the place
of accident to the place of repair and return to the service be estimated at 75% or more of the
agreed value. This provision shall not, however, preclude the declaration of a total loss following
the agreement between the insurers and the insured in the event that such costs be estimated at

less than 75% of the agreed value. In such event the insurers will pay the agreed value of the
aircraft. However, any increase in the agreed value of the aircraft concerned, as provided in clause
11 of this section, shall not be taken into account in the application of this provision.’
[44] The issue in dispute is whether on a proper consideration of the various repair
costs relied on by the parties, such costs do or do not exceed the 75% threshold referred
to above. Global contends they do, while Ingosstrakh submits the contrary. This issue, in
turn, depends on the extent of damage to the aircraft. The aircraft had two engines and
according to Global, both engines were damaged. It was common cause between the
parties that the incident had resulted in damage to the structure of the engines.
[45] Global relies on a quotation by Global Aviation Maintenance Limited (Global
Maintenance), its associated company, of which it is common cause, that it is a duly
accredited Aircraft Maintenance Organisation (AMO). Global Maintenance reflects the fair
and reasonable costs of repair as being US$2 891 028.14, well in excess of the
US$1 875 000, ie 75% threshold. This includes the cost of repairs of both engines in the
amount of US$1 133 863. This amount is based on a report dated 1 July 2013 by Bonus
Aerospace,10 which deals with the work scope and quotations to repair the engines, and
shows that the cost to repair the two engines are US$516 301.04 and US$617 562.84,
respectively.
[46] Ingosstrakh’s stance, on the other hand, is that only one engine (the left one) was
damaged. It relies on a quotation by Phoebus Apollo (Phoebus). Although there is a
dispute whether Phoebus was an accredited category ‘B’ AMO, I assume, for present
purposes, that it had the necessary accreditation. In terms of Phoebus’ quotation, the
necessary repair work to the structural damage on the aircraft could be done for a cost
below the 75% threshold. Its estimation of the repair cost is US$1 139 000, which does
not include the engine repair cost. It also does not include the cost for non-routine repair
work should such be necessary with additional findings, nor for any engineering. The

10 The Bonus Aerospace referred to in the letter is a USA facility certified by South African Airways with
the capabilities and reputation in the industry for its high-quality work.

quotation which Ingosstrakh furnished in respect of the engines was prepared by FJ
Turbine for US$ 119 600.  However, it does not include costs for: parts and components;
additional work resulting from exposure to areas not quoted; exposure resulting from
rejection of flow checks, bench checks, missing components, etc.
[47] This dispute as to whether both engines or one were damaged, need not unduly
detain us.  Deference should be given to a neutral and authoritative view of the South
African Civil Aviation Association (SACAA). In terms of the Civil Aviation Act 13 of 2009,
this is the supreme authority in the country over all aircraft and related matters, including
the regulation of how repairs to aircraft are done. The aircraft in issue was registered with
SACAA. According to SACAA’s regulations, repairs can only be carried out by an
approved AMO holding a category B accreditation from SACAA. This is for quality
assurance purposes. In other words, SACAA would issue the necessary certificate
airworthiness only if the repairs were carried out by an approved AMO. It follows that any
quotation for repairs provided by an organisation which is not an approved AMO would
be of little value.
[48] Moreover, SACAA’s view in respect of the necessary repairs to the aircraft in issue,
is set out in its letter to Global dated 5 August 2013. It said, among other things, the
following:
‘As per previous correspondence for Airworthiness department, we confirm that the minimum
work scope acceptable to return JT8D-217A engines bearing serial numbers P726370 AND
P708515 to service is the ESV-2 work scope detailed in the reports from Bonus Aerospace dated
1 July 2013 and FJ Turbine Power dated 28 June 2013 that were submitted to this department.’

[49] From the above, it is clear that SACAA requires that for the aircraft to return to
airworthiness, both engines need to be repaired. The scope of works decreed by SACAA
is ESV-2. According to an extract from Pratt & Whitney’s Maintenance Planning Guide11
this involves heavy maintenance, which requires a full overhaul of the engines. As stated

11 Pratt & Whitney is an American aerospace manufacturer with global service operation. It is said to be a
world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines and auxiliary power units.

already, there is also a report from Bonus Aerospace in which it is estimated that the cost
of repairing the two engines were US$617 562.84 and US$516 301.04, respectively.
Thus, from all the available evidence, including SACAA’s letter dated 5 August 2013, it
must be accepted that both engines were damaged in the incident and that SACAA
directed that both engines must be overhauled. It is therefore not open to Ingosstrakh,
without more, to assert that only one engine was damaged.
[50] In Ingosstrakh’s replying affidavit in the counter application, the deponent, Mr van
der Merwe, an aviation surveyor and assessor of insurance claims in the aviation industry,
contended that all of SACAA’s correspondence relied upon by Global referenced but one
engine. But that is plainly not so, given the contents of SACAA’s letter of 5 August 2013.
Although, Mr van der Merwe references this letter, he does not explain how it can be read
to refer to but one engine. His critique of the letter is that it relies upon quotes that were
premised on instructions from Global, and hence were inflated. This, contends Mr van der
Merwe, gives rise to a triable issue.
[51] In my view that is not the case. SACAA had determined that both engines had to
be repaired and the scope of works required to do so. SACAA is an independent authority.
It had made a decision as to what was required to return the aircraft to service. Mr van
der Merwe’s skepticism as to the basis upon which SACAA made its decision does not
displace that decision or cause it to be set aside. In the face of SACAA’s decision, it is
hard to imagine a trial court reaching a different outcome. There is not a genuinely triable
issue on this score.

[52] Once this is accepted, the CTL threshold is exceeded, when one takes into
account that the only quotation which deals with SACAA’s requirement, and the scope of
repairs regarding the engines, is by Bonus Aerospace dated 1 July 2013. As stated
already, according to that quotation the cost to repair both engines amounted to
US$1 133 863.88. Phoebus’ quotation for the airframe, it should be recalled, is US$
1 139 000. If one were to add this amount to the Bonus Aerospace quotation, the CTL

threshold has clearly been exceeded. Seen in this light, Ingosstrakh simply does not have
a bona fide defence to Globals’ claim.

[53] To sum up, Ingosstrakh is under bar from delivering its plea. Even if one were to
be generous and consider it to be in the interests of justice to ignore this procedural
impediment, Ingosstrakh has failed to show good cause for its failure to file its plea. There
is no acceptable explanation therefor, and it has not demonstrated a bona fide defence
to Global’s claim. It follows that the court a quo erred in dismissing Global’s application
for default judgment. It should have been granted and Ingosstrakh’s counter-application
dismissed.
[54] In the result the following order is made:
1 The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so
employed.
2 The cross-appeal is upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where so
employed.
3 The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following:
a) Default judgment is granted against the respondent in favour of the
applicants in the sum of US$ 2 500 000;
b) Interest on the above amount at the prescribed rate from 13 November
2012 to date of payment;
c) Costs of the suit.

____________________
T Makgoka
Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES:
For Appellant:
B Berridge SC (with him A Govender)
Instructed by:
Clyde & Co., Johannesburg

Webbers, Bloemfontein.

For Respondents:
N Segal (with him A Ramlaal-Narash)
Instructed by:

Cranko Karp, Johannesburg

McIntyre Van der Post, Bloemfontein.

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY: JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM       The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE        4 June 2021

STATUS     Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Ingosstrakh v Global Aviation Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (934/2019) [2021] ZASCA 69 (4 June
2021)

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) dismissed with costs, the appellant's (Ingosstrakh)
appeal against an order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (the high court) which
dismissed Ingosstrakh’s application for condonation of the late filing of its plea. The SCA also upheld
with costs, the respondent’s (Global) appeal against the order of the high court dismissing their
application for default judgment against Ingosstrakh. The SCA set aside the order of the high court and
replaced it with an order granting default judgment against Ingosstrakh in favour of Global.
The dispute arose from an insurance policy concluded between Global and companies associated to it,
on the one hand, and Ingosstrakh, a Russian company, on the other. In terms of the policy, Ingosstrakh
undertook to indemnify Global against all risks associated with a specified aircraft. The risk insured
against occurred and a dispute arose as to Ingosstrakh’s liability to pay in terms of the policy. Global
issued summons against Ingosstrakh, which failed to plead and was placed under bar. Upon expiry of
the bar, Global applied to the high court for default judgment. Ingosstrakh opposed the application and
counter-applied for the lifting of the bar. The high court dismissed both applications but subsequently
granted leave to the SCA.
The SCA concluded that the order of the high court was untenable to the extent it failed to resolve the
disputes between the parties. With regard to Ingosstrakh’s application for the lifting of the bar, the SCA
concluded that since there was no appeal against an earlier high court order dismissing a similar
application, its appeal had to fail on the basis that the issue was res judicata. The SCA further concluded
that in any event, Ingosstrakh had failed to show good cause for the lifting of the bar.
The SCA also considered Ingosstrakh’s submission that the high court did not have jurisdiction to
determine the dispute as it, Ingosstrakh, and the second respondent, were both foreign peregrini in
South Africa, and that in terms of the policy, jurisdiction was governed by the laws of the Virgin British
Islands, the second respondent’s country of domicile. The SCA considered the leading authority on this
issue, namely Veneta Mineraria SPA v Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) 1987 (4) SA 883 (A),
as well as Hay Management Consultants Ltd v P3 Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd [2005] 3 All SA
119 (SCA). The court distinguished Veneta on the following basis: in Veneta, the plaintiff was a foreign
peregrinus and the defendant a local peregrinus of Natal, but an incola of the Transvaal. Although the
defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Durban and Coast Local Division, there was no other
jurisdictional connecting factor linking the defendant to the Natal Court. Consequently, such submission
to jurisdiction did not suffice to clothe the Natal court with jurisdiction. In the present case, the SCA
found, on a consideration of a number of factors, that Ingosstrakh had submitted to the jurisdiction of
the high court, and in addition, there was a ground of jurisdiction that linked the subject matter of the

litigation to the high court, ie that the insurance policy was concluded in Johannesburg. Accordingly,
the SCA concluded that the high court had jurisdiction in the matter.
The Court considered Ingosstrakh’s various other defences and found no merit in any of them.
In the circumstances, the Court (per Makgoka JA) with Mbha and Dambuza JJA and Mabindla-Boqwana
and Unterhalter AJJA concurring, dismissed with costs, Ingosstrakh’s appeal against an order of the
high court dismissing its application for condonation of the late filing of its plea. It upheld with costs,
Global’s appeal against the order of the high court dismissing Global’s application for default judgment.
The SCA set aside the order of the high court and replaced it with an order granting default judgment
against Ingosstrakh in favour of Global.

END