In a January 2025 high court judgment, the insured in their proposal represented that in order to be insured, their vehicle was fitted with a vehicle tracking device. The policy conditions also provided that the vehicle had to be fitted with a tracking device which had to always be in working order and activated.

On the evidence before the court (by way of application) it was clear that there had been both a misrepresentation by the insured in that regard and that the vehicle had not been fitted with a tracking device. The court concluded that the insurer was entitled to reject the claim. 

This was a straightforward factual dispute in which the insured surprisingly persisted in its claim despite the clear basis of the rejection communicated by the insurer, and the absence of suitable evidence to prove the fitting of a tracker. 

Ngako v Bryte Insurance Company Limited and Another [2025] ZAGPPHC 120 (31 January 2025)