Buitendach v South Vereeniging Properties (Edms) Bpk (12942/2007) [2012] ZAGPPHC 78 (13 April 2012)

Buitendach v South Vereeniging Properties (Edms) Bpk (12942/2007) [2012] ZAGPPHC 78 (13 April 2012)

The court held that the plaintiff was aware, at the time of making each payment, of the facts that rendered the contract void, namely that he contracted as agent for a trust that did not exist. His lack of awareness of the legal consequences of those facts (i.e., the contract's invalidity) is not relevant for the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. Accordingly, prescription began to run on the date of each payment. Since summons was served more than three years after the first two payments, the claims for repayment of R400,000 (paid on 3 June 2003) and R100,000 (paid on 17 February 2004) have prescribed. The defendant's special plea of prescription succeeds.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Riaan Buitendach; Defendant: South Vereeniging Properties (Edms) Bpk
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2012
Case Number
12942/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld. The plaintiff's claims for repayment of the amounts paid on 3 June 2003 and 17 February 2004 are extinguished by prescription.
Judges
B.R. du Plessis
Legal Topics
Prescription, Condictio Indebiti, Void Contract, Knowledge of Facts, Special Plea
Civil Procedure Prescription Condictio Indebiti Void Contract Knowledge of Facts Special Plea

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riaan Buitendach

Plaintiff

South Vereeniging Properties (Edms) Bpk

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claims for repayment of amounts paid under a void contract have prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's knowledge of the legal invalidity of the contract is relevant for the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff was aware, at the time of making each payment, of the facts that rendered the contract void, namely that he contracted as agent for a trust that did not exist. His lack of awareness of the legal consequences of those facts (i.e., the contract's invalidity) is not relevant for the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. Accordingly, prescription began to run on the date of each payment. Since summons was served more than three years after the first two payments, the claims for repayment of R400,000 (paid on 3 June 2003) and R100,000 (paid on 17 February 2004) have prescribed. The defendant's special plea of prescription succeeds.

Court Disposition

The defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld. The plaintiff's claims for repayment of the amounts paid on 3 June 2003 and 17 February 2004 are extinguished by prescription.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription in respect of the plaintiff's claims for repayment of R400,000 (paid on 3 June 2003) and R100,000 (paid on 17 February 2004) succeeds.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs associated with the special plea, including the costs of the hearing thereof.