In the matter of Rippel v Absa Brokers (Pty) Ltd (KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Durban, Case No. 3198/2009), the Court was confronted with a common, yet instructive, dispute: whether a financial services provider had breached its mandate by failing to ensure the accuracy of information submitted to an insurer. The decision offers valuable insight into how courts assess evidence, particularly where the version of events is contested and credibility becomes dispositive.
I had the privilege of acting as the attorney of record for the defendant in this matter. The case presented a number of evidentiary and procedural challenges, but it also reaffirmed the enduring value of preparation, process, and the careful handling of client instructions.
The plaintiff, a long-standing private banking client of ABSA, had procured vehicle finance and accompanying short-term insurance through the bank’s channels. Following a later collision and subsequent repudiation of the claim—on the basis of a prior accident not disclosed in the insurance proposal—the plaintiff sought damages against the broker. His case hinged on allegations of negligence and a failure to warn of the consequences of incorrect disclosures.
The Court, however, dismissed the claim in its entirety. It found that the plaintiff had indeed provided the relevant information telephonically prior to signing the insurance documents, and that the proposal had been populated accordingly. The broker, Ms du Bois, was found to be a careful and credible witness. Her reliance on a structured internal software system (Pro-Planner), her invariable professional practices, and her concessions where appropriate stood in stark contrast to the plaintiff’s vague and uncorroborated testimony.
Several key principles emerge from the judgment:
- Structured Process Enhances Credibility
The Court placed significant weight on the use of a standardised system and repeatable procedures. In the absence of documentary or audio evidence, the broker’s adherence to established workflows was persuasive. - Witness Demeanour and Reasonableness Matter
The judicial assessment of credibility extended beyond what was said to how it was said. The broker’s forthrightness and willingness to concede unfavourable points contrasted sharply with the plaintiff’s overconfident denials. - Client Responsibility and Causation
The Court held that even if the warning about the consequences of incorrect disclosure had not been reiterated at the point of signing, the plaintiff would in all likelihood have proceeded to sign the proposal regardless. This absence of causation proved fatal to the claim.
From a litigation perspective, the case is a compelling reminder that evidentiary disputes are often won not through drama but through diligence—through consistent process, reliable documentation, and witnesses who are well-prepared, honest, and professional.
At Terblanche Inc., we routinely advise clients—whether claimants or defendants—in matters where these subtleties are determinative. Our approach is meticulous and evidence-led, and we understand that the foundation of any successful litigation strategy lies not merely in argument, but in proof.