Ellis Structural and Civil Engineers CC v Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd (23229/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 671 (8 July 2025)

Ellis Structural and Civil Engineers CC v Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd (23229/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 671 (8 July 2025)

The court held that the debts under the written and oral agreements became due monthly as the plaintiff was entitled to issue invoices for services rendered. The power to issue invoices lay solely with the plaintiff, and its failure to do so could not delay the running of prescription. The last possible date for the debts to become due was July 2014, and prescription commenced running from August 2014. Summons was issued in April 2018, after the three-year prescription period had expired for all claims. The court found that the alleged interruptions of prescription in June 2015 and May 2016 did not meet the requirements of section 14 of the Prescription Act, as there was no unequivocal...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 671
Parties
Plaintiff: Ellis Structural and Civil Engineers CC; Defendant: Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 July 2025
Case Number
23229/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Determined Before Merits, Per Rule 33(4)
Judges
E M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Contractual Debt, Interruption of Prescription, Acknowledgement of Liability, Interpretation of Contracts
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Contractual Debt Interruption of Prescription Acknowledgement of Liability Interpretation of Contracts

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellis Structural and Civil Engineers CC

Plaintiff

Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Determined Before Merits, Per Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's five claims for payment under written and oral agreements have prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the running of prescription was interrupted by alleged acknowledgements of liability by the defendant.
  3. 3 When did the debts in respect of each claim become due for purposes of prescription?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the debts under the written and oral agreements became due monthly as the plaintiff was entitled to issue invoices for services rendered. The power to issue invoices lay solely with the plaintiff, and its failure to do so could not delay the running of prescription. The last possible date for the debts to become due was July 2014, and prescription commenced running from August 2014. Summons was issued in April 2018, after the three-year prescription period had expired for all claims. The court found that the alleged interruptions of prescription in June 2015 and May 2016 did not meet the requirements of section 14 of the Prescription Act, as there was no unequivocal...