Buhrmann v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (45190/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 35 (9 March 2012)

Buhrmann v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (45190/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 35 (9 March 2012)

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff's claim had prescribed. The plaintiff credibly testified that he only became aware of the incorrect interest calculations in November 2009, following an advertisement and subsequent recalculation. The defendant did not challenge this evidence in cross-examination. The court accepted that the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, could not have discovered the facts underlying his claim earlier. Accordingly, the special plea of prescription was dismissed. The court further accepted the joint expert calculation of the amount due and awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the recalculated...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 35
Parties
Plaintiff: Gideon Wilhelmus Buhrmann; Defendant: Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2012
Case Number
45190/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; special plea of prescription dismissed; defendant ordered to pay recalculated amount, interest, and costs.
Judges
R Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement, Prescription Act, Special Plea of Prescription, Interest Calculation, Costs of Two Counsel
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Loan Agreement Prescription Act Special Plea of Prescription Interest Calculation Costs of Two Counsel

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Wilhelmus Buhrmann

Plaintiff

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act, 1969.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care to discover the facts underlying his cause of action within the prescribed period.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable to repay the plaintiff the amount claimed due to incorrect interest calculations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff's claim had prescribed. The plaintiff credibly testified that he only became aware of the incorrect interest calculations in November 2009, following an advertisement and subsequent recalculation. The defendant did not challenge this evidence in cross-examination. The court accepted that the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, could not have discovered the facts underlying his claim earlier. Accordingly, the special plea of prescription was dismissed. The court further accepted the joint expert calculation of the amount due and awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the recalculated...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; special plea of prescription dismissed; defendant ordered to pay recalculated amount, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for payment of R17,946.69.
  • Interest on the judgment amount is payable at 15.5% per annum calculated from 10 August 2010 until date of payment.