prescriptioninsurance policyannuitycontinuous obligationcause of action
Tags
InsurancePrescriptionAnnuityPension
legislation
Statutes Cited
Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11]
Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11]
Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11]
Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11]
Constitution of Zimbabwe
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred by holding that the appellant's claim had prescribed.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Maturity date of policy; date of service of summons."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant entered into a 24-year insurance policy with the respondent, which matured on 1 July 2013. The appellant claimed the cumulative benefits on 18 July 2016, which was more than three years after the maturity date. The respondent raised a special plea of prescription, which the High Court upheld.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases