Deetlefs v Friedman N.O, In re: Deetlefs v Deetlefs (JUDGMENT) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1036 (15 December 2015)

Deetlefs v Friedman N.O, In re: Deetlefs v Deetlefs (JUDGMENT) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1036 (15 December 2015)

The court found that the terms of reference and addendums did not create a debt between the applicant and the deceased that arose out of the partnership relationship as envisaged by section 13(1)(d) of the Prescription Act. The documents merely set out the mandate for the third party and the process for dissolution, but did not impose any obligation on the deceased partner to do something for the benefit of the applicant. As such, the applicant could not rely on the extension of the prescriptive period under section 13(1)(d). Furthermore, the terms of reference and addendums did not constitute a judgment debt or order of court, as they were not executable and did not allow for exact...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1036
Parties
Applicant: C.S. Deetlefs; Respondent: A.D. Friedman N.O.; Plaintiff: C.A. Deetlefs; Defendant: C.S. Deetlefs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2015
Case Number
27798/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; the applicant's claim has prescribed.
Judges
Hughes
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Partnership Dissolution, Judgment Debt, Terms of Reference
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Partnership Dissolution Judgment Debt Terms of Reference

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.S. Deetlefs

Applicant

A.D. Friedman N.O.

Respondent

C.A. Deetlefs

Plaintiff

C.S. Deetlefs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for dissolution and division of the partnership has prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the terms of reference and addendums constitute a judgment debt or an order of court.
  3. 3 Whether section 13(1)(d) of the Prescription Act applies to delay prescription in this matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the terms of reference and addendums did not create a debt between the applicant and the deceased that arose out of the partnership relationship as envisaged by section 13(1)(d) of the Prescription Act. The documents merely set out the mandate for the third party and the process for dissolution, but did not impose any obligation on the deceased partner to do something for the benefit of the applicant. As such, the applicant could not rely on the extension of the prescriptive period under section 13(1)(d). Furthermore, the terms of reference and addendums did not constitute a judgment debt or order of court, as they were not executable and did not allow for exact...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; the applicant's claim has prescribed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, the claim of the applicant having become prescribed.