Anglorand Securities Ltd v Mudau and another (125/10) [2011] ZASCA 76 (26 May 2011)

Anglorand Securities Ltd v Mudau and another (125/10) [2011] ZASCA 76 (26 May 2011)

Prescription commenced to run at the latest by 25 October 2002, when Anglorand Securities Ltd expressly disputed liability for the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff failed to prove any express or tacit acknowledgment of liability by Anglorand that would interrupt prescription under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. Communications from Anglorand and its representatives consistently denied liability, and the insurance claim referenced related to a separate entity, Cahn Shapiro, not Anglorand. The plaintiff's summons was served after the three-year prescription period had expired, and the special plea of prescription must therefore be upheld. The High Court misdirected itself by entering...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 76
Parties
Appellant: Anglorand Securities Limited; Respondent: Divhani David Mudau; Respondent: Rudolph Rashama
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Case Number
125/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo High Court (thohoyandou), Adjudication of Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs. The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with an order upholding the special plea of prescription and dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs.
Judges
Heher, Ponnan, Maya, Meer, Plasket
Legal Topics
Prescription Act 68 of 1969, Commencement of Prescription, Interruption of Prescription, Special Plea, Oral Agreement, Acknowledgment of Liability
Civil Procedure Prescription Act 68 of 1969 Commencement of Prescription Interruption of Prescription Special Plea Oral Agreement Acknowledgment of Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglorand Securities Limited

Appellant

Divhani David Mudau

Respondent

Rudolph Rashama

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo High Court (thohoyandou), Adjudication of Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did prescription commence to run in respect of the plaintiff's claim against Anglorand Securities Ltd?
  2. 2 Was the running of prescription interrupted by any acknowledgment of liability by Anglorand Securities Ltd?

Ratio Decidendi

Prescription commenced to run at the latest by 25 October 2002, when Anglorand Securities Ltd expressly disputed liability for the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff failed to prove any express or tacit acknowledgment of liability by Anglorand that would interrupt prescription under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. Communications from Anglorand and its representatives consistently denied liability, and the insurance claim referenced related to a separate entity, Cahn Shapiro, not Anglorand. The plaintiff's summons was served after the three-year prescription period had expired, and the special plea of prescription must therefore be upheld. The High Court misdirected itself by entering...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs. The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with an order upholding the special plea of prescription and dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside.