Category Archives: Court

The innocuous little domicilium clause. We’ve all signed a contract containing one, whether we noticed it or not. The domicilium clause is a standard clause in most written agreements, which effectively specifies how communications, notices, legal processes and the like are to be served on the receiving party.

Typically, the contract provides for a party to identify a physical address that is nominated as the ‘domicilium citandi et executandi’ – or the address at which the party will accept the service or delivery of official documents related to the contract. Often this clause includes a deeming provision, for example the assumption that the letter will be delivered within eight days after being mailed by registered post. That’s all well and good; until the time comes when a person needs to serve something really important on the other party. Like a termination notice, demand letter or summons. That’s when things can fall apart. For example:

The court was asked to adjudicate upon an insurance claim that was repudiated by Outsurance in Jerrier v Outsurance Insurance (Pty) Ltd. Briefly, the facts in this case were that Jerrier had taken out an insurance policy with Outsurance to cover his household goods and motor vehicle. In terms of his policy, Outsurance offered a cash reward for not claiming. If there was no claim against the policy for the first three years of the policy, Jerrier’s cash reward was a reimbursement of 10% of the value of the premiums that he had paid. This reward increased to 20% for the following two years, and 25% for every year thereafter. The intention behind this incentive is clear: the customer is motivated to not lodge claims, specifically for minor incidents. After all, claims are bad business for an insurance company that has to foot the bill for the insured’s losses.