The Mpumalanga High Court ruled against a woman who wanted to withdraw her investment from Sanlam Life Insurance Limited before its maturity date.
The ruling was made after the Nelspruit Regional Court had ruled that Sanlam should give her the money which prompted the insurer to approach the high court on appeal.
The matter emanates from December 2021 when Nosifiso Chigombo approach the insurance company and deposited R320,00 into her investment policy. The policy was to run for five years, from January 2022 until January 2027 and she would get over R418,000.
However, three weeks after investing the money, she applied for a partial withdrawal of R120,000 from the investment and left R200,000.
A year later, in January 2023, she approached Sanlam for a second withdrawal saying she needed money to pay tuition fees, however, her request was declined.
She then demanded the contract be cancelled so that all her investment funds could be returned to her. This was also denied.
She launched an application with the Nelspruit Regional Court seeking an order in forcing Sanlam to cancel the contract and pay her R167,000. The court papers does not disclose how this figure was calculated.
Sanlam opposed the application on the contractual grounds that pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), however, the Magistrate ruled in favour of Chigombo.
Unhappy with the ruling, Sanlam approached the high court on appeal and the matter was heard by acting judge Takalani Vincent Ratshibvumo and acting judge L Coetzee.
The judges said from the facts of the case, Chigombo had an opportunity to either cancel the contract as a whole, or do a partial withdrawal, and she chose the latter.
It was held that the contents of the contractual document she presented as evidence, were binding on her and Sanlam.
“What she expected the court to do is against the legislative provisions that were also incorporated into the contract that she signed,” said the judges.
The judges said if they were to allow Chigombo to make a second withdrawal or cancel the contract after making a partial withdrawal, Sanlam would not only be deviating from the agreement, but it would also be breaking the law.
As a result, the ruling made by the Nelspruit Regional Court was dismissed.
IOL News