It happens not infrequently that a South African insurer, in agreeing to insure a South African, or other African risk, provides that the policy and disputes arising under the policy are subject to the laws of England (or another jurisdiction).

That might have unlooked for and unappreciated consequences in respect of prescription of any claim.

The high court in England grappled with the situation where 79 divorce order had been obtained despite a breach of their statute law which requires that “an application for a divorce order may not be made before the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage”. Seventy nine couples, apparently

In the recent case, the High Court of South Africa dealt with an application for the rescission of two court orders. These orders were related to a settlement agreement following defaults on loan repayments by the Applicants.  

The applicants had entered into a settlement agreement with the respondents (Bank) after defaulting on their loan repayments. 

The South African High Court in Pretoria refused to grant an application seeking to enforce an interdict granted by a Bermudan court against a South African company that was at no stage present in Bermuda and did not submit to its jurisdiction. The court applied the principles recognised by South African law insofar as its

The South African High Court in Pretoria refused to grant an application seeking to enforce an interdict granted by a Bermudan court against a South African company that was at no stage present in Bermuda and did not submit to its jurisdiction. The court applied the principles recognised by South African law insofar as its