THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA

CASE NO:  312/2002
Reportable

In the matter between

LAPPEMAN DIAMOND CUTTING WORKS (PTY)
LTD                                                                                              APPELLANT

AND

MIB GROUP (PTY) LTD                                                FIRST  RESPONDENT

GLENRAND MIB LTD                                               SECOND RESPONDENT

CORAM:   HOWIE P, BRAND, LEWIS, HEHER JJA, VAN HEERDEN AJA

HEARD:19 AUGUST 2003

DELIVERED:   29 SEPTEMBER 2003

Summary: Extent of specialist insurance broker’s  duty to advise
insured of implications of promissory warranty or obligation:  when
claim arose and whether prescribed.

JUDGMENT

LEWIS JA

[1] The principal issue in this appeal is the nature and extent of
a specialist insurance broker’s duty to his client to draw to the
attention of the client, and to explain, the existence and
implications of an onerous term in an insurance policy.  A
subsidiary issue is whether, should a breach of the duty be found
to have occurred, prescription has run against the appellant.

[2] The appellant carries on the business of diamond cutting and
polishing in Randburg, Gauteng, and in the erstwhile Pietersburg
(now Polokwane). Roger Lappeman,  the managing director and a
shareholder of the appellant, is the principal protagonist in the
litigation against the respondents, insurance brokers. The
respondents have by agreement assumed joint and several liability
for any order made against the first respondent, and the second
respondent plays no role in the determination of the issues before
this Court.  I shall refer, thus, only to the first respondent (‘the MIB
Group’).

[3] The litigation commenced with an action against the
underwriter and the MIB Group for payment of a claim by the
appellant for the loss of diamonds.  The action against the MIB
Group was, however, withdrawn during the course of the

proceedings. The action against the underwriters was dismissed
by Plewman J in November 1993. The appellant then instituted
action against the MIB Group for two payments of US $2 751 936
and $9 851 467 respectively (the amounts claimed initially from the
underwriter), alleging that these sums were the damages
sustained by it as a result of the MIB Group’s breach of contract,
alternatively, negligent performance of a duty. Its case was
pleaded in the form of a main claim with various alternatives. Only
the main claim is relevant here and, for convenience, when I refer
to the claim I mean the main claim.

[4] This is both an appeal and a cross-appeal against the
decision of the majority of a full bench in the Johannesburg High
Court (the cross appeal lies against the finding that the claim had
not prescribed). Both appeals lie with the special leave of this
Court.

The history of the action

[5] When the trial (in the Johannesburg High Court, before Joffe
J) commenced at the beginning of 1997 various aspects of the lis
had already been separated for determination in terms of rule

33(4). A further ruling under rule 33(4) was made at the outset of
the trial that the MIB Group’s liability under the claim be
determined, but that its quantification would be dealt with
subsequently. After the appellant’s first witness, its attorney, had
given evidence it was further ruled that the question whether the
claim had prescribed should be determined first. A subsequent
amendment to the appellant’s further particulars made the last
ruling nugatory, and in the result the trial on the merits proceeded.

[6] A
number
of
further
amendments,
occasioning
postponements, were granted such that the trial resumed only
towards the end of 1998. It is not necessary to traverse the
evolution of the particulars of claim and the defences. The claim
ultimately adjudicated is the following. In July 1988, Lappeman,
representing the appellant, and Mr Alec Holmes, representing the
MIB Group, entered into a contract in terms of which, inter alia, the
MIB Group would act as the appellant’s insurance broker and
would procure insurance from underwriters. In doing so, the MIB
Group would act with reasonable care and skill ‘such as could be
expected of a professional insurance broker’. Further, the MIB
Group undertook to familiarise itself with the nature and the scope
of the appellant’s business, which included ascertaining whether

the appellant was able to fulfil the requirements of an underwriter
in terms of a policy. The MIB Group was obliged to ‘draw the
attention of the plaintiff [the appellant] to any promissory
warranties . . . applying to the policies’.

[7] The critical provision in the policy taken out by the appellant,
and on which the underwriters had relied in avoiding the claims
made by the appellant, was clause (b) of the ‘Specific Conditions’
which reads:
‘It is understood and agreed that the Assured shall keep detailed records of all
sales, purchases and other transactions and that such records shall be
available for inspection by the Underwriters or their representatives in case of
a claim being made under this Insurance Certificate.’
The underwriters were held not liable to the appellant when sued
because it had not kept the records required. Plewman J found
that clause (b) constituted a promissory warranty and that it had
been breached.

[8] The basis of the appellant’s claim is that the representatives
of the MIB Group, over the period when the appellant was insured,
had not told Lappeman about the existence of this provision; had
not familiarised themselves with the appellant’s business which

was such that not every record of a transaction was kept; had not
explained to him the implications of failure to keep records, and
was therefore in breach of its duties as listed above.
Consequently, it was alleged,  the appellant did not keep records
strictly in compliance with the requirements of clause (b) with the
result that the underwriter avoided, or cancelled, the policy,
alternatively refused to indemnify the appellant, because of non-
compliance. The appellant was accordingly not able to recover the
losses suffered by it.

[9] Joffe J in the trial court found that the MIB Group was not
liable for any breach of duty to the appellant, and that in any event
its claim had prescribed. He granted leave to appeal to a full bench
of the High Court, Johannesburg on the issue of prescription and
this Court granted leave also to appeal against the decision that
there was no breach of a duty. Malan J, with whom Blieden J
concurred, found that there had been no breach on the part of the
MIB Group, and that the claim had to fail. Cloete J dissented,
holding that there had been a breach of a duty by the MIB Group in
failing sufficiently to enquire about the appellant’s manner of doing
business and record-keeping. I shall return to the respective
findings in the full court later in the judgment. That court

unanimously held, however, that the appellant’s claim had not
prescribed.

The evidence

[10] The insurance claims made by the appellant were in respect
of diamonds stolen from its premises in Pietersburg in the
1989/1990 insurance period. These were all diamonds of low
grade. Lappeman contended, and this was not contested, that the
records in respect of the diamonds stolen had been properly
maintained. He conceded, though, that he did not keep records of
all transactions done by the appellant.

[11] This was so, Lappeman claimed, because the diamond trade
is one with a tradition of confidentiality. Deals are done informally,
and records are not retained. A contract for the sale of a diamond
may take place on a handshake, or may be recorded on a slip of
paper that is subsequently discarded or destroyed. Such
transactions are referred to as being ‘off-the-book’. The reason for
non-retention of records is primarily to protect the identity of the
purchaser. The tradition arose in Europe where trading in
diamonds was done by people who bought and sold confidentially,

particularly preceding and during the Second World War, when
diamonds were sold, or handed for safekeeping, to  dealers who
would keep the stones and return them to the owners in due
course.

[12] The evidence for the appellant of Mr Noel Newton, also a
diamond cutter with considerable experience in the diamond trade,
was that off-the-book transactions are common throughout the
world. If one did not understand that off-the-book transactions
were customary in the trade one should not be in it: one could not
survive in the trade if ignorant of the custom, he said.

[13] Lappeman and Newton testified that the practice of entering
into off-the-book transactions was not illegal. The purpose was not
to avoid paying tax, for example. A record would be kept of the
transaction but not of the identity of the purchaser. Another
transaction often not recorded was the swapping of rough stones
for smooth. It was not denied, however, that certain transactions
undertaken by diamond dealers were indeed illegal: ‘schlepping’ of
diamonds abroad (that is, smuggling them out of South Africa to
avoid the application of exchange control regulations) was also
common in the industry. Lappeman denied participating in such

activities. (A representative of the MIB Group, Mr Alec Holmes, to
whose evidence I shall return, testified that on the way to a
meeting with the underwriters in London, Lappeman had
confessed to him that he indulged in schlepping. Lappeman denied
this.)

[14] The essence of the appellant’s case was that the
representatives of the MIB Group, as experts in the field of
diamond insurance, would have known of the practice of doing off-
the-book transactions. Accordingly they should have drawn
Lappeman’s attention to clause (b) and alerted him to the fact that
he would be in breach of a promissory warranty, and would lose
indemnity, should he not keep full records of all transactions.
Lappeman denied that he had been aware of the existence of the
clause before his dispute with the underwriters commenced.
Although it had been in the policy from inception, he had not read
it, and had not ever been told about it. He had not been questioned
about his record-keeping systems. He had no recollection of ever
meeting the representative of the MIB Group who had first placed
the insurance with the underwriters, nor of any discussion with
subsequent representatives about the existence or implications of
clause (b).

[15] The various representatives of the MIB Group denied the
truth of Lappeman’s allegations. All claimed to have drawn his
attention to the clause. And none was aware of the practice in the
diamond trade of not keeping records.

[16] Insurance had first been sought by the appellant when he
started his business in Randburg in 1982. Lappeman had been
advised by the Diamond Club that the specialist insurance broker
in the diamond industry was Stewart Wrightson, represented then
by Mr Graham Sanders, the head of the specie department (bullion
and diamonds) of the brokerage at that stage. (The MIB Group
effectively stands in the place now of Stewart Wrightson: the
brokerage has undergone a number of changes in name and
ownership from 1983 to date.)

[17] Although Lappeman had testified, as I have said, that he had
no recollection of any meeting with Sanders, the documentary
evidence makes it clear that a special specie contract was
negotiated with the underwriters through Sanders, and was
concluded in 1984. Sanders testified that the policy was a
particularly simple one, offered only to select clients. It was

developed to provide cover for De Beers sight holders. Almost all
sight holders were insured through Stewart Wrightson. The policy
offered what was termed ‘cradle to grave’ protection: it covered the
stock of the insured from the time of acquisition until he was no
longer responsible for it. The client had but a few obligations to
meet. These included ensuring the security of the premises and
the stock, and the keeping of records.

[18] Records of all transactions had to be kept in terms of clause
(b). The keeping of records was of the essence of the policy.
Sanders, and the broker who took over from him, Mr Ian Martin,
both testified that they had discussed the clause with Lappeman,
Sanders on inception of the policy and Martin in June 1985 when
the policy was renewed.

[19] Sanders claimed to have traversed every aspect of the policy
with Lappeman on the inception of the policy. He had not kept
notes recording that he had done so, but it was his practice to go
through the policy with every client, he said, and he had met
specifically with Lappeman for that purpose. He had read the
clause to Lappeman. He did not recall whether Lappeman had a
copy of the policy in front of him at the time. He had not dealt with

the question of off-the-book transactions because he was unaware
of the alleged practice of diamond dealers in this regard. Sanders
did not, however, recall having asked Lappeman anything specific
about the way in which the appellant carried on business. He had
assumed that, when he read clause (b) to Lappeman, it was
understood that full records of all transactions had to be kept by
the appellant.

[20] Martin, too, testified that he had met with Lappeman to go
through the policy on its renewal in 1985. He had taken a
questionnaire with him for his own reference. He said that he had
asked Lappeman specifically about whether he kept detailed
records of all sales, purchases and other transactions. He had not
indicated on the questionnaire that he had gone through clause (b)
with Lappeman, but said that he had in fact done so. Furthermore,
Martin testified, he had obtained a copy of the Diamonds Act 56 of
1986, which requires strict record-keeping, and had sent a copy of
the Act to the brokers in London, who would have forwarded it to
the underwriters.

[21] The third representative of the MIB Group who gave
evidence, Mr Alec Holmes, joined the group in May 1987, and

worked for a while in the specie division with Martin, from whom he
took over as head of the department some six months later. Martin
had taken Holmes through the files of every client, including that of
the appellant. When the appellant’s policy was due for renewal in
mid-1988, Holmes said, he had gone through its file, and then set
up a meeting with Lappeman.

[22] At the meeting Holmes had asked about the business, the
security arrangements, and record-keeping, in particular whether
there had been any changes in this regard. He and Lappeman had
walked through the Randburg premises together, and Holmes had
been shown the record-keeping offices. He was satisfied, he said,
that the appellant fulfilled the record-keeping requirement of clause
(b). On the two successive occasions when the policy was
renewed (in 1990 and 1991) Holmes said he had asked about the
record-keeping of the appellant.

[23] In July of 1989 the appellant discussed a potential claim with
Holmes for some R800 000. An investigation followed and a report
was made which was sent to London. The report made adverse
comments about the appellant’s record-keeping. A meeting was
held with Lappeman who insisted that his record-keeping system

was good. And subsequently a further meeting was held at which a
presentation of the computer systems of the appellant was made
to Holmes and to  Mr Tim Davidson, a director of the appellant,
and also a member of the Jewellery Council and the Master
Diamond Cutters Association. Holmes was then satisfied about the
record-keeping of the appellant. Yet a further presentation was
made in Pietersburg when the broker from London and a potential
underwriter were present.

[24] Holmes therefore had no reason to question Lappeman’s
assertions that he kept full records as required by the policy.
Moreover, a claim was made in respect of the theft of diamonds by
a former employee of the appellant in early 1990. All records were
checked before the claim was settled.

[25] It was only when the appellant made the claims presently in
dispute that its record-keeping practice was questioned. It was
then that Lappeman refused to give to the underwriters’ attorneys
records of certain transactions unless an undertaking were given
that these would not be disclosed.

[26] By March 1991 the claim had not been settled. Holmes was
told, he said, that the policy was to be cancelled and the claim
rejected because of the appellant’s failure to comply with clause
(b). The version of the MIB Group is that the cancellation and
rejection were communicated on 4 March. The dates when
rejection of the claim and cancellation of the policy took place are
crucial to the question whether the claim had prescribed, and I
shall deal with them separately.

[27] On 6 March 1991 a letter written by the attorney for the
underwriters, Mr Kapelus, was sent to the appellant. It read:
‘We write to inform you that the underwriters reject the whole of your
client’s claim on the ground that your client has failed to prove that it has
sustained any loss which is the subject of indemnity under any of our clients’
relevant insurance contracts.
Our clients furthermore reserve all their rights in respect of any breach
or breaches by your client of the terms and conditions of the insurance
contracts and further arising from any non-disclosure of material facts or
misrepresentations in respect of the cover or at inception of any relevant
renewal.’

[28] The day before the letter was sent a meeting had been held
between Mr Frank Garrett and Holmes of the MIB Group, and

Lappeman. The meeting was recorded on a videotape. The
meeting is relevant primarily to the issue of prescription. But the
transcription of the videotape shows also that Lappeman disclosed
to Garrett and Holmes at the meeting that the appellant
kept what he termed ‘confidential’ stock as well as ‘official’ stock,
and that he was not willing to go through an entire sight with the
underwriters unless he was given an undertaking of confidentiality.
Holmes did not express any surprise at Lappeman’s disclosure in
this regard. It was accepted, it appears, that the losses incurred
were all in respect of ‘official stock’.

The evidence of the experts on a specialist broker’s duty

[29] Two experts gave evidence on the duties of an insurance
broker working with members of the diamond trade. The expert
called by the appellant, Mr Donald Gallimore, testified that when
the appellant first took out the policy the representative of the MIB
Group, then Sanders, had a clear duty to draw the appellant’s
attention to the existence of the obligations imposed on it,
including that embodied in clause (b). Sanders should also have
explained the meaning of the provision to Lappeman. He drew a
distinction, however, between the broker’s duty when a policy was

first taken out and that when it was renewed. The provision was
identical from inception to termination. Thus in Gallimore’s view,
each time the policy was renewed the broker had a duty only to
establish whether there were any changes in the appellant’s
business practices.

[30] Gallimore accepted that if Sanders had indeed explained
clause (b) to Lappeman then the MIB Group’s obligation to the
appellant would have been discharged; and that similarly, if Martin
and especially Holmes, had questioned Lappeman on changes in
respect of record-keeping or business practice, then there would
have been no breach of any duty imposed on the MIB Group. It
was Gallimore’s view that a broker is dependent on the client to
inform him of any peculiar aspect of his business. In this case, the
failure of the appellant to maintain his diamond register accurately
was significant and the MIB Group should have been told about it.

[31] The MIB Group’s expert witness, Mr John Hollinrake, agreed
with the views expressed by Gallimore. He too expressed the
opinion that it is the insured who must provide information to the
broker, who offers insurance on the information provided. The

broker does not control the insured’s business: he is entitled to rely
on the truth of the information provided by the insured.

The findings of the trial court on credibility and fact

[32] Joffe J considered Lappeman to have been a poor witness.
His contention that clause (b) had not ever been drawn to his
attention was not only in conflict with the evidence of the three
representatives of the MIB Group who had dealt with him over the
period when the policy was in force: it was also inconsistent with
his initial failure to confront Holmes or anyone else in the MIB
Group about their failure to draw the clause to his attention. He
was, said the learned judge, a ‘skilled and consummate
businessman’ who was determined to pursue his claim. Yet he had
not contended at the outset, when the underwriters rejected the
claim, that he was ignorant of his duty to keep full records. And
when the claims in issue were initially made against the
underwriters, he had refused to allow them to go through a full
sight unless an undertaking of confidentiality was made.
Lappeman’s evidence was thus inconsistent with his conduct, and
improbable.

[33] On the other hand the trial court considered that both
Sanders and Martin were reliable and credible witnesses. Holmes’
evidence was less satisfactory, but the court accepted that for the
1989/1990 renewal Holmes had satisfied himself that the
appellant’s business practices had not changed; and that for the
1990/1991 renewal the issue of record-keeping had again been
raised, in particular because of the consideration of the loss-
adjuster’s report in respect of the loss suffered in the previous
year. The court thus found that the MIB Group had at all material
times advised Lappeman of the appellant’s duty to keep records of
all transactions.

Should the MIB Group representatives have done more than
apprise Lappeman of the record-keeping obligation ?

[34] The majority of the full court, affirming the decision of the trial
court, considered that it was sufficient for the brokers to have
drawn Lappeman’s attention to the record-keeping requirement on
the inception of the policy, and to have satisfied themselves on
each renewal that the appellant’s business practices had not
changed. Once the appellant had been advised of the obligation to

keep full records of all transactions, and had assured Sanders that
he would comply with the requirement, the duty of the MIB Group
was discharged. Although the MIB Group had undoubtedly
professed to have specialized skill and experience in the diamond
insurance business, it could not have been expected to question
Lappeman about the appellant’s business practices. To require
more of them, in particular that they ask about off-the-book
transactions, the majority held, would be to expect too ‘high or
perfectionist a standard’.

[35] Cloete J, in the minority judgment, took a different view. Off-
the-book transactions – in the sense of confidential transactions
rather than illegal ones – were common in the diamond trade.
Records are routinely destroyed. Any broker with specialist
knowledge, as the MIB Group professed to have, ought to have
known that clause (b) would be a problem if records were
destroyed. The learned judge relied in this regard on Durr v ABSA
Bank Ltd & another 1997 (3) SA 448 (SCA) at 460F-464E where
Schutz JA held that a specialist broker must demonstrate greater
skill and knowledge than the ordinary broker, just as the specialist
doctor must show greater skill than a general practitioner (Van
Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438 at 444).

[36] The nature of an insurance broker’s duty to the insured is
expressed in Lenaerts v JSN Motors (Pty) Ltd & another 2001 (4)
SA 1100 (W) where Potgieter AJ, after traversing several English
authorities in this regard, said (at 1109H-J):
‘I consider that in our law, as in English law, the duty to exercise reasonable
care and skill in appropriate cases extends to the duty to take reasonable
steps to elicit and convey material information both from and to the insured.
This includes information about terms of the policy which, if contravened,
might leave the insured without cover. It is part and parcel of the broker’s
general duty to use reasonable care to see that the insured is covered.’

[37] The English cases particularly relied upon in Lenaerts, and
adduced as authority in this case by both parties, are McNealy v
The Pennine Insurance Co Ltd, West Lanc. Insurance Brokers Ltd
and Carnell [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 18 (CA) and Harvest Trucking Co
Ltd v P B Davis t/a P B Davis Insurance Services [1991] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 638 (QB).  In the latter, Judge Diamond said (at 643):

‘The ordinary function of the insurance broker or other intermediary is
to receive instructions from his principal as to the nature of the risk or risks
and the rate or rates of premium at which he wishes to insure, to
communicate the material facts to the potential insurers and to obtain

insurance for his principal in accordance with his principal’s instructions and
on the best terms available. The liability of an insurance agent to his employer
for negligence is comparable to that of any agent. He is bound to exercise
reasonable care in the duties which he has undertaken. In no case does the
law require an extraordinary degree of skill on the part of the agent but only
such a reasonable and ordinary degree as a person of average capacity and
ordinary ability in his situation and profession might fairly be expected to
exert.

The precise extent of the insurance intermediary’s duties must depend
in the last resort on the circumstances of the particular case, including the
particular instructions which he has received from his client. . . . It is normally
not a part of the broker’s  . . . duty to construe or interpret the policy to his
client, but this again is not of course a universal rule.  . . . [I]f the only
insurance which the intermediary is able to obtain contains unusual, limiting or
exempting provisions which, if they are not brought to the notice of the
assured, may result in a policy not conforming to the client’s reasonable and
known requirements, the duty falling on the agent, namely to exercise
reasonable care in the duties which he has undertaken, may in those
circumstances entail that the intermediary should bring the existence of the
limiting or exempting provisions to the express notice of the client, discuss the
nature of the problem with him and take reasonable steps either to obtain
alternative insurance, if any is available, or alternatively to advise the client as
to the best way of acting so that his business procedures conform to any
requirements laid down by the policy’ (my emphasis).

[38] In McNealy, where the policy excluded liability where the
insured was a part-time musician, and the broker had failed to
establish whether the insured was such (the insured had indicated
on the policy that he was a repairer of property) the court held that
the broker was guilty of a breach of his duty in failing to draw the
exclusion to the attention of the insured. Lord Denning MR held
that the broker ought to have asked the insured, when the latter
said he worked as a property repairer, if he was also a part-time
musician in view of the peculiar exclusion. However, McNealy
does not assist the appellant in this case since there the broker
had failed to advise the insured of the existence of the exclusion.

[39] The MIB Group, as a specialist brokerage, should have had
knowledge of the practice in the diamond business of off-the-book
transactions, Cloete J found. Thus, he held, it was not sufficient for
Sanders, Martin and Holmes to have drawn the attention of
Lappeman to clause (b), or on renewal to have established
whether the appellant’s business practices had changed: they
should have gone further. They should have asked ‘ “Do you enter
into off the book transactions?” In the context of the diamond
trade, the question cried out to be asked both at inception and
renewal.’

[40] That is the crux of the difference between the majority and
minority judgments of the full court. And, of course, the appellant
now contends that in the light of the well-known practice of doing
off-the-book transactions, the MIB Group representatives should
expressly have asked Lappeman whether the appellant did off-the-
book transactions and warned him of the consequences of doing
so.

[41] There are in my view two problems with the contention. The
one is fact-bound. It was not established that any of Sanders,
Martin or Holmes was aware of the practice of not keeping full
records of all transactions. Although Newton had testified that one
could not survive in the trade without knowledge of the practice,
the MIB Group representatives denied knowledge and their
evidence was accepted. And even if they had some knowledge of
off-the-book transactions, what precisely did that mean? There
was certainly no clarity in this regard. Newton’s evidence related
largely to confidential transactions where the anonymity of the
purchaser of diamonds was preserved. Lappeman’s evidence, on
the other hand, referred also to other transactions in respect of
which full records were not kept, such as the swapping of rough

diamonds for smooth, and the illegal export of diamonds. There
was no evidence that the MIB Group was, or should have been,
aware that a diamond dealer would invariably participate in such
practices.

[42] It is true that Garrett, at the meeting held (and videotaped)
on 5 March 1991, did not seem surprised at Lappeman’s
disclosure that the appellant had ‘confidential stock’. But one
cannot infer from that that he, or any representative of the MIB
Group, had knowledge of precisely what this meant, or of other off-
the-book transactions.

[43] The second difficulty with the appellant’s argument relates to
a broker’s duty in principle. Even if the representatives of the MIB
Group had had knowledge of the practice in the diamond trade,
was it then incumbent on them to have asked Lappeman whether
the appellant did off-the-book transactions? I consider not. The
authorities on which the appellant relies, and the evidence of the
experts on insurance broking, suggest that once the insured is
apprised of the duty to keep full records of all transactions, there is
no need for the broker to go further and ask whether the insured
does in fact keep records. In the Harvest Trucking case (above),

for example, it is not suggested that a specialist broker has a duty
to make enquiries about the business of the insured once the
insured has been fully informed of his obligations under the
insurance contract.

[44] A broker does not, and cannot be expected to, control the
business of the insured. Even the specialist broker’s duty does not
encompass a duty to ensure that the insured complies with his
obligations under the policy. He is not the insured’s keeper. His
duty, as a specialist broker, is discharged when he has done
everything reasonably necessary to draw the attention of the
insured to obligations imposed by the policy. It is the insured’s
responsibility to ensure compliance.

[45] Once it is accepted – as it is – that the MIB Group
representatives did advise Lappeman of his obligations there
cannot be room for arguing that Lappeman, an astute
businessman, needed to be asked whether the appellant complied
with the obligation to keep full records. It was the appellant’s
responsibility alone to ensure compliance. I consider therefore that
the MIB Group did not breach any duty to the appellant. For that
reason alone this appeal must fail. However, the MIB Group cross-

appealed against the full court’s finding that the appellant’s claim
had not prescribed. It is thus necessary to deal with the issue of
prescription, albeit briefly.

Prescription

[46] The critical questions relating to prescription of the alleged
claim are when the debt had become due, and when the appellant
had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from
which the debt arose, or should reasonably have been expected to
have such knowledge: s 12 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The
trial court held that the appellant had become aware of the basis of
its claim – the rejection of the insurance claims because of failure
to comply with clause (b) – on 6 March 1991, if not before. The
court found, accordingly, that the appellant’s claim had prescribed
since more than three years had elapsed between the time when
the underwriter’s attorney’s letter of 6 March 1991 had been sent
to the appellant and the issue of summons.

[47] The full court found, however, that the appellant’s claims had
not been formally rejected before 6 March 1991, when the
underwriter’s attorney had written to the appellant, and that even

then, the letter stated that the reason for the rejection was failure
to prove loss rather than failure to keep records. The claim had
thus not prescribed.

[48] On appeal to this Court the MIB Group argued that the
appellant had known for some time before 6 March 1991 that the
claims were rejected because of failure to comply with clause (b).
There is indeed some evidence that the MIB Group and the
appellant were aware that the failure to keep records was in issue
before the letter formally advising of rejection was sent. It is not
necessary to traverse this evidence, however. Whatever the MIB
Group might have been told by the underwriters, and in turn
communicated to the appellant, prior to 6 March the appellant had
not been formally advised that the claims were to be rejected or
that the policies were to be cancelled. The potential rejection for
want of compliance with clause (b) does not create a debt. Nor
does discussion about the reasons for repudiation.  Until the
claims were formally refused, on the basis that the appellant had
failed to keep full records of all transactions, the debt of the MIB
Group would not have arisen.

[49] The letter of 6 March was the first formal notification of
repudiation of the appellant’s claims. Even in that letter, the basis
for the repudiation (which is what would have given rise to an
action against the MIB Group for breach of a duty) is not said to be
the failure to keep records, but failure to prove the loss.

[50] The first paragraph of the letter, set out earlier in the
judgment, states expressly that the underwriters have rejected the
appellant’s claim ‘on the ground that your client has failed to prove
that it has sustained any loss  which is the subject of indemnity
under any of our client’s relevant insurance contracts’. Although
the second paragraph states that the underwriters reserve their
rights in respect of any breach of the insurance contract by the
appellant, this does not amount to a rejection of the claim on that
basis. Indeed, the first paragraph clearly shows that the reason for
rejection is another ground. Thus on 6 March 1991 the appellant
did not know that it had a claim against the MIB Group.

[51] I consider thus that the court a quo correctly found that the
appellant did not know, nor ought reasonably to have known, of
the MIB Group’s alleged breach of duty more than three years

before it instituted action. If there had been a claim, it would not
have prescribed. The cross appeal thus fails.

Order

The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those attendant
on the employment of two counsel.
The cross appeal is dismissed with costs.

C H LEWIS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

CONCUR
HOWIE P
BRAND JA
HEHER JA
VAN HEERDEN AJA