Insured South Africans can see a motor vehicle claim paid out, even if they were known to be speeding.
In a case before the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance, the insured submitted a claim for vehicle damage after they collided with a cow.
The insurer rejected the claim on the basis that the insured failed to apply reasonable care and precaution to prevent the incident.
In the complaint, the insured did not dispute the speed at which he travelled, stating that he was not aware of the speed limit applicable to the road.
The insured added that the speed was irrelevant as he could not see the due to a third-party vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, blinding his vision with its lights - meaning he could not see the cow.
The insurer acquired the services of an independent expert who retrieved the vehicle’s speed from the
diagnostic data of the vehicle, and consider the circumstances surrounding the accident.
The insurer provided evidence to show that the insured vehicle was travelling 130km/h when the incident took place.
The insurer also highlighted the following information:
• The road was poorly lit.
• There was a sign 13 km before the collision confirming the maximum speed to be travelled on the road as 80 km/h.
• There was a sign on the opposite direction warning of the prevalence of cows on the road.
• The road was travelled earlier in the day by the insured, and he was, therefore, familiar with the road
and the applicable road restrictions.
The independent expert appointed by the insurer added the following:
“The risk vehicle was travelling a maximum speed of between 125 km/h and 135 km/h within 5 seconds
before the crash, and this is between 56% and 69% faster than the speed limit for the road.
“The driver increased the stopping distance by approximately 58 meters by driving at 130 km/h.
“By doing that, an inescapable emergency was created by the driver’s own tortious conduct. When a driver engages in an activity in which certain emergencies are likely to arise, the driver must be prepared to meet them.”
“Had the incident driver opted to travel at the speed limit or appropriate speed, then he would have been in a better position to observe animals, reduce the vehicle speed and take evasive action or bring the
vehicle to a complete stop.”
With these facts, the insurer rejected the liability for the claim on the basis that the insured failed to apply the necessary due care.
Since it was clear that the insured travelled over the speed limit, the OSTI had to determine if the insured’s actions could be considered a failure to apply the necessary due care and precaution.
“The issue to be determined was whether the insurer had shown, on a balance of probability, that
the insured’s conduct was reckless,” said Nekecia van Niekerk, Assistant Ombudsman.
The insurer has to prove that the insured intentionally disregarded the maximum speed limit.
It then had to show that the incident would not have occurred if the vehicle had travelled at the right speed.
Findings
The OSTI said that there were several aspects left wanting in the insurer’s case, stating that the accident only occurred due to the speed travelled without evidence.
It was undisputed that the insured was blinded by an oncoming vehicle and did not see the animal.
Moreover, the road sign warning of the presence of animals was only present on the oncoming lane, meaning it could not be considered relevant to the insured.
In addition, it was argued that the insured could not have been familiar with the road after only having travelled on it once before the collision.
The insurer could also not speak to the position, speed or visibility of the animal.
“Based on the undisputed facts, it would have been impossible to predict the movement of the animal or for the driver to foresee the presence of an animal on the road,” said Van Niekerk.
“OSTI found that it was essential for the insurer to take cognisance of the fact that there were several intervening factors at play and that it would be unreasonable to say that by merely driving slower, the animal would have been visible, and the collision would subsequently have been avoided.”
Moreover, the OSTI questioned the insurer’s experts, as the diagnostic did not record a reaction manoeuvre, and little data was available for the expert to calculate distances accurately.
“OSTI reminded the insurer that the opinion of an expert does not automatically deem a claim accurately rejected, and excessive speed does not inevitably amount to recklessness.”
“Each matter is to be considered in its own set of facts for it to be determined whether it is
reasonable to deny liability.”
“An insurer cannot merely reject a claim without providing proof that the actions of the driver are
material to the loss.”
“OSTI found that the insurer had not discharged its onus on a balance of probability, and a
recommendation to pay the claim was issued. The insurer conceded to OSTI’s recommendation
and settled the claim.”

According to the department, the visas were acquired through misrepresentation in Tunis, Tunisia.
When a team led by SAPS detectives arrived at the farm they found the Libyans housed in military tents.

The department of home affairs has cancelled the irregularly acquired visas of 95 Libyans arrested after police uncovered a suspected military training base in White River in Mpumalanga, minister Dr Leon Schreiber confirmed.
According to the department, the visas were acquired through misrepresentation in Tunis, Tunisia.
The visa cancellations mean the affected Libyans are now undocumented foreign nationals.
The suspected military training base was raided on Friday by police acting on intelligence information.
The Libyans were found housed in military tents with military training equipment including licensed firearms.
Police also found dagga and cocaine.
Schreiber commended the team and said the department is working with other law enforcement authorities to look at all options, including deportation.
“One operation at a time, we must restore the rule of law. Following a major joint operation by Home Affairs, the SA Police Service and other law enforcement authorities, the department is on the ground ensuring that anyone who breached immigration laws is processed through the court. Respect our laws, or there will be consequences,” he warned.
Schreiber said he has instructed the department to provide full support to this multidisciplinary effort.

Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber was responding to written questions by MPs about the temporary visa concession for foreigners as well as the impact of wealthy foreigners on the rental housing market.
CAPE TOWN - Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber said there were measures in place to prevent the abuse of immigration policies for foreigners.

Schreiber also said that the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) was probing thousands of visas issued due to the alleged corrupt activities contained in the Lubisi Report, which exposed serious fraud in the department.

He said that the total number of approved cases since August 2022 was almost 80,000 cases (79,904).

Schreiber was responding to written questions by MPs about the temporary visa concession for foreigners as well as the impact of wealthy foreigners on the rental housing market.

The home affairs minister was asked by African Transformation Movement (ATM) MP Vuyo Zungula on how the concession for foreign nationals aligned with the government’s strategy to reduce unemployment and protect job opportunities for South Africans.

Zungula also asked Schreiber for details of the skills transfer plan for foreign workers as well as the measures his department had in place to address the issue of fraud.

Schreiber said that the concession was aimed at addressing applicants who were affected by the backlogs experienced in the department.

On the skills transfer, the minister said that this occured for a category of visa, namely, intra-company transfer, whereby the company is required to have a skills transfer plan.

But Schreiber referred questions on the impact of wealthy foreigners on the local property markets to other relevant departments, like human settlements.

Being merely born in South Africa is not enough to determine the citizenship of a child. For a child to obtain citizenship by birth in South Africa, one of the two parents must be a South African citizen, naturalised or permanent resident.

This has been clarified by Home Affairs Deputy Minister Njabulo Nzuza, who explained that children born in South Africa - with neither parents being South African - do not automatically acquire South African citizenship.

Nzuza’s statement comes amid afrophobic attacks aimed at Miss SA hopeful Chidimma Adetshina.

Born in 2001 in Soweto to a Nigerian dad and a South African mom with Mozambican roots, Adetshina has faced afrophobic and xenophobic attacks on social media, with South Africans questioning her citizenship. She is a South African citizen.

Nzuza says those who feel strongly against Adetshina and which ever other citizen, they “have a right to come to Home Affairs through a PAIA (Promotion of Access to Information Act) and say that they suspect this person, then we will investigate,” he said.

He said if investigations uncover that the parents acquired citizenship fraudulently, it could be revoked from both the parents and the child.

Nzuza said they have not received any specific request to investigate the citizenship status of the Miss SA contestant`s parents.
What do legal experts say?

Writing on the Public Interest Legal Centre of South Africa (PILS), Lawyers for Human Rights explained that being born in South Africa does not automatically confer citizenship.

“People automatically qualify for South African citizenship only if they were born in South Africa and at least one of your parents was a South African citizen or holder of a permanent resident’s permit, or if you were adopted by a South African citizen.”

Additionally, Taryn York and Thato Makoaba, associates in employment law at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH) Incorporated, a full-service law firm, said that if an immigrant gives birth in South Africa while holding a work visa and the mother holds a visitor`s visa, and applies for a birth certificate for the child while they are not permanent residents, the child will only receive an unabridged birth certificate, which does not confer citizenship.

They said this would allow their children to return to their home country where they could be issued with birth certificates.

York and Makoaba said dissatisfied parents had recourse to file a review application under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.

The High Court would required to determine the following:

- Whether citizenship could be granted to children of persons who were neither South African permanent residents nor citizens;

- Whether the applicants` minor children qualified for South African citizenship by birth in terms of section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act 8 of 1995 (Citizenship Act); and

- Whether the legal status of a parent`s admission into South Africa could determine the citizenship of their child under section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act.

In determining these issues, the court would consider section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act which provides that:

`Any person born in the Republic and who is not a South African citizen by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be a South African citizen by birth if - (a) he or she does not have the citizenship or nationality of any other country, or has no right to such citizenship or nationality, and (b) his or her birth is registered in the Republic in accordance with the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1992`.

The law firm said in expanding on section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act, the court will also rule that citizenship in South Africa is either obtained by birth, descent, or naturalisation, “and that the basic principle of South African citizenship is that a child follows the citizenship or nationality of his or her parents”.

The Department of Home Affairs has clarified the facts regarding the nationality of Miss SA finalist Chidimma Adetshina.The Department of Home Affairs has clarified the confusion regarding Miss SA finalist Chidimma Adetshina, whose nationality had been questioned.

Since revealing that her father is Nigerian and her mother is a South African with Mozambican roots, the 23-year-old has been victimized by angry pageant fans who believe she should not win or represent South Africa.

On social media, various high-profile figures, including Prince Kaybee, Pearl Thusi, Gayton McKenzie, Herman Mashaba, and Julius Malema, have shared their comments on the scandal.
HOME AFFAIRS SPEAKS: WHAT MAKES YOU A SOUTH AFRICAN

Speaking to Clement Manyathela on 702, Home Affairs Deputy Minister Njabulo Nzuza attempted to set the record straight on Chidimma Adetshina and questions over her citizenship.

Nzuza began by claiming that he was not at liberty to publicly reveal confidential information about any citizen, including Chidimma.

However, he did clear up confusion on what constitutes citizenship, which, according to the Citizenship Act, is acquired by birth, descent, or by naturalisation.

Nzuza said, “It is commonly acquired either by soil or by blood. When we say soil, it’s because you are born in that country, and then you become a citizen.

“One country which has adopted this is America, whereby if you are born there, you become a US citizen. [However], in South Africa, you get citizenship by blood. One of your parents must be a South African. Then you qualify.

He continued: “If a person suspects that there is a person who is unworthy of citizenship or might have wrongly obtained citizenship, they do have a right to come to Home Affairs, and then we investigate.

“If citizenship has been obtained in a wrong way, we have taken back the citizenship and indicated that it was obtained via fraud.

“In some cases, its not the actual person, but it is the parents of that person who have obtained citizenship. When we take away the citizenship which was erroneously or fraudulently obtained, then the child also loses citizenship”.

“I’ve heard a lot of people say that if you are born in South Africa, you are a citizen. No, in South Africa, citizenship is by blood”.
BORN TO FOREIGN PARENTS

Clarifying, Nzuza added that a child born in South Africa to foreign parents could obtain citizenship if their parents had a permit residency.

He continued: “The children follow the status of their parents.

“If a parent is here on a permanent residence and their child is born here, then that child qualifies for permanent residency.

“If a South African mother adopts a child, then that child can become a South African.”
MISS SA ON CHIDIMMA: IS SHE A SOUTH AFRICAN?

The South African reached out to the Miss SA organisation for comment. It confirmed that both Chidimma Adetshina and her mother are South African citizens. It also confirmed that Chidimma met all the necessary criteria to enter the pageant.

The organisation also declined to comment further on the social media backlash.