Cook v Morrison and Another (1319/2017) [2019] ZASCA 8; [2019] 3 All SA 673 (SCA); 2019 (5) SA 51 (SCA) (8 March 2019)

Cook v Morrison and Another (1319/2017) [2019] ZASCA 8; [2019] 3 All SA 673 (SCA); 2019 (5) SA 51 (SCA) (8 March 2019)

The court held that the applicant's claims were 'debts' within the meaning of the Prescription Act, as they involved personal obligations to pay money or deliver assets following cancellation of a contract. The relationship between the parties was not one of partnership but rather co-shareholding in companies, and thus s 13(1)(d) of the Prescription Act did not apply to delay prescription. The special plea of prescription was properly adjudicated on the applicant's primary pleaded facts, and the alternative allegation regarding the date of cancellation did not present a realistic or plausible case. The applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying the grant of special...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 8
Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Cook; Respondent: Murray Morrison; Respondent: Seabush Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Case Number
1319/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Reconsideration Under S 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Lewis, Leach, Saldulker, Mathopo, Rogers
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Leave to Appeal, Partnership Definition, Restitution After Cancellation, Separation of Issues, Joint Venture Agreement
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Special Leave to Appeal Partnership Definition Restitution After Cancellation Separation of Issues Joint Venture Agreement

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Cook

Applicant

Murray Morrison

Respondent

Seabush Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Reconsideration Under S 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claims constitute 'debts' within the meaning of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the parties was one of partnership for the purposes of delaying prescription under s 13(1)(d) of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the special plea of prescription was correctly adjudicated separately without evidence on the date of cancellation of the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's claims were 'debts' within the meaning of the Prescription Act, as they involved personal obligations to pay money or deliver assets following cancellation of a contract. The relationship between the parties was not one of partnership but rather co-shareholding in companies, and thus s 13(1)(d) of the Prescription Act did not apply to delay prescription. The special plea of prescription was properly adjudicated on the applicant's primary pleaded facts, and the alternative allegation regarding the date of cancellation did not present a realistic or plausible case. The applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying the grant of special...

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed.