Fourie and Another v Minister of Police and Another (05859/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 94 (18 March 2019)

Fourie and Another v Minister of Police and Another (05859/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 94 (18 March 2019)

The court held that the defendant bears the onus to prove when the plaintiffs acquired or ought to have acquired knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt. The plaintiffs admitted that the cause of action arose on 24 March 2003 but did not admit that the debt was then due. The defendant failed to lead any evidence or assert the date on which the plaintiffs acquired the requisite knowledge. As a result, the defendant did not discharge the onus required by law, and the special plea of prescription could not be upheld.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 94
Parties
Plaintiff: Dawid Fourie; Plaintiff: Malcolm Oranje; Defendant: Minister of Police; Defendant: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Case Number
05859/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Determined Before Merits
Outcome
The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Linde
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Malicious Prosecution
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Malicious Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dawid Fourie

Plaintiff

Malcolm Oranje

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Determined Before Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did prescription begin to run in respect of the plaintiffs' claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution?
  2. 2 Did the defendant discharge the onus to prove when the debt became due for purposes of prescription?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant bears the onus to prove when the plaintiffs acquired or ought to have acquired knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt. The plaintiffs admitted that the cause of action arose on 24 March 2003 but did not admit that the debt was then due. The defendant failed to lead any evidence or assert the date on which the plaintiffs acquired the requisite knowledge. As a result, the defendant did not discharge the onus required by law, and the special plea of prescription could not be upheld.

Court Disposition

The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The first defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.