Du Plooy v Venter Joubert Inc en Ander (1/2010) [2012] ZANCHC 50; 2013 (2) SA 522 (NCK) (14 December 2012)

Du Plooy v Venter Joubert Inc en Ander (1/2010) [2012] ZANCHC 50; 2013 (2) SA 522 (NCK) (14 December 2012)

The court found that the defendants were professionally negligent in failing to institute action against the Minister before prescription, resulting in the plaintiff's claim being lost. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants was for loss of opportunity to claim against the Minister, not for the underlying injury. The court held that interest on the settlement amount is not a component of damages but serves to compensate the plaintiff for being paid in depreciated currency. Exercising its discretion under section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, the court determined that interest should run from 3 September 2006, thirty days after the notice to the Minister, as the...

Citation
[2012] ZANCHC 50
Parties
Plaintiff: Aletta Maria Magtelene du Plooy; Defendant: Venter Joubert Inc.; Defendant: Heila Pistorius
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Case Number
1/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for interest and costs is granted.
Judges
Coetzee
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Prescription of Claims, Mora Interest, Breach of Mandate, Quantification of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Professional Negligence Prescription of Claims Mora Interest Breach of Mandate Quantification of Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aletta Maria Magtelene du Plooy

Plaintiff

Venter Joubert Inc.

Defendant

Heila Pistorius

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were professionally negligent in failing to institute timeous action against the Minister, resulting in the plaintiff's claim prescribing.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the settlement amount, and from which date such interest should accrue.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants were professionally negligent in failing to institute action against the Minister before prescription, resulting in the plaintiff's claim being lost. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants was for loss of opportunity to claim against the Minister, not for the underlying injury. The court held that interest on the settlement amount is not a component of damages but serves to compensate the plaintiff for being paid in depreciated currency. Exercising its discretion under section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, the court determined that interest should run from 3 September 2006, thirty days after the notice to the Minister, as the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for interest and costs is granted.

Orders

  • Defendants are ordered to pay to plaintiff interest at the rate of 15.5% calculated on the amount of R296,262.94 from 3 September 2006 to date of payment.
  • Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiff's costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.