In a recent Johannesburg High Court judgment, the plaintiff, Karanie, instituted an action against the life insurer, the defendant, in December 2012. The claim sought payment of benefits allegedly due under a life insurance policy. The defendant defended the action and filed a counterclaim to recover payments already made under the policy.
The matter was enrolled for trial on 4 May 2015. However, the court postponed the case to an unknown future date. It also ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the postponement. The costs were later taxed, but the plaintiff failed to pay them. For several years, the plaintiff took no meaningful steps to advance the matter. Consequently, the case remained dormant.
In 2023, the court stayed the proceedings until the plaintiff paid the taxed costs. Despite undertaking in 2024 to settle those costs, the plaintiff still failed to do so. As a result, the matter remained stalled and could not progress.
The defendant subsequently applied for dismissal for want of prosecution because of the inordinate delay and the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the claim. The question before the court was whether it should exercise its discretion and order dismissal for want of prosecution.
The law and the requirements for bringing such an application
The court confirmed that it has inherent jurisdiction to dismiss an action for want of prosecution. However, it also emphasised that courts should exercise this power sparingly.
The court referred to Cassimjee vs Minister of Finance, where the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the following requirements must be present:
- There should be a delay in prosecuting the action.
- The delay must be inexcusable.
- The defendant must suffer serious prejudice because of the delay.
The court explained that deciding an application for dismissal for want of prosecution requires a close examination of all the relevant circumstances. These include the length of the delay, the reasons for it and the prejudice caused.
The court also confirmed that no hard-and-fast rules apply. Likewise, no single factor is decisive. Instead, courts must weigh all the relevant factors together and assess them holistically.
Findings of the court
The court held that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution had been satisfied. It therefore exercised its discretion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
The court first clarified that an inordinate delay alone will not justify dismissal. The application will fail unless the defendant can also prove serious prejudice. However, in this matter, the prejudice to the defendant was not only real but substantial.
More than 13 years had passed since the plaintiff instituted the action. In addition, nearly 11 years had passed since the matter was last enrolled for trial. During that period, the plaintiff took no meaningful steps to advance the proceedings.
The court found the plaintiff’s explanations inadequate. It also found that the objective facts did not support those explanations. Furthermore, the court emphasised the plaintiff’s persistent failure to comply with the costs order. That failure resulted in a stay of proceedings and prevented the action from progressing.
The court also found that the defendant had suffered serious prejudice. The claim arose from events dating back to 2009. As time passed, the availability and reliability of evidence deteriorated, particularly expert evidence. In addition, the unresolved claim created ongoing uncertainty for the defendant. The stay of proceedings also prevented the defendant from progressing the matter procedurally.
In conclusion
This decision illustrates a compelling and justified exercise of the court’s discretion in circumstances involving prolonged and unexplained delay. Several years passed without any meaningful progress. Moreover, the plaintiff provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Litigants should not suffer prejudice because of inordinate delays.
The defendant complied with the court’s procedures throughout the litigation. By contrast, the plaintiff failed to do the same. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to comply with the costs order. As a result, the court stayed the proceedings. That stay also prevented the defendant from finalising its counterclaim.
Accordingly, the continued existence of the action was inconsistent with fairness and the proper administration of justice. The delay was clearly inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial to the defendant. The judgment also demonstrates why dismissal for want of prosecution remains an important safeguard against prolonged litigation that unfairly prejudices opposing parties.
 |
 |
| Sifiso Dlamini | Candidate Attorney | Insurance & Financial Services Department | mail me | | Guided and reviewed by Mthokozisi Maphumulo | Partner | Litigation Attorney | Insurance & Financial Sector Laws | mail me | |
| | Adams and Adams | | |
