Heukelman and Others v Heukelman NO And Another (6751/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 179 (20 August 2012)

Heukelman and Others v Heukelman NO And Another (6751/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 179 (20 August 2012)

The court found that the plaintiffs, on their own version and through correspondence dating back to the 1990s, had knowledge of alleged dissipation of corpus assets by Rachel and the second defendant at least by 1996. Their right to claim an account and delivery of assets accrued at that time, and their failure to act is penalised by the Prescription Act. The argument that the right to claim only vested upon Rachel's death was rejected, as the plaintiffs could have acted earlier to protect their interests. The knowledge required for prescription is not full legal knowledge but sufficient facts to institute action. The relief sought by plaintiffs was already available to them in March...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 179
Parties
Plaintiff: Herman Heukelman; Plaintiff: Jan Heukelman; Plaintiff: Anna Elizabeth Prinsloo (born Heukelman); Defendant: Frits Heukelman N.O.; Defendant: Frits Heukelman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2012
Case Number
6751/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Adjudicated Before Merits and Quantum.
Outcome
Defendants' special plea of prescription upheld with costs, including reasonable and taxable costs of two experts.
Judges
TM Makgoka
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Usufruct and Bare Dominium, Liquidation and Distribution Account, Fiduciary Duty, Debate of Account
Civil Procedure Land and Property Prescription Act Usufruct and Bare Dominium Liquidation and Distribution Account Fiduciary Duty Debate of Account

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herman Heukelman

Plaintiff

Jan Heukelman

Plaintiff

Anna Elizabeth Prinsloo (born Heukelman)

Plaintiff

Frits Heukelman N.O.

Defendant

Frits Heukelman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated and Adjudicated Before Merits and Quantum.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants have prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 At what point did the plaintiffs acquire knowledge of the facts giving rise to their claims for delivery of account and assets.
  3. 3 Whether the right to claim an account and delivery of assets only arose upon the death of the usufructuary, Rachel Heukelman.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, on their own version and through correspondence dating back to the 1990s, had knowledge of alleged dissipation of corpus assets by Rachel and the second defendant at least by 1996. Their right to claim an account and delivery of assets accrued at that time, and their failure to act is penalised by the Prescription Act. The argument that the right to claim only vested upon Rachel's death was rejected, as the plaintiffs could have acted earlier to protect their interests. The knowledge required for prescription is not full legal knowledge but sufficient facts to institute action. The relief sought by plaintiffs was already available to them in March...

Court Disposition

Defendants' special plea of prescription upheld with costs, including reasonable and taxable costs of two experts.

Orders

  • The defendants' special plea is upheld with costs.
  • Costs shall include the reasonable and taxable costs in respect of Dr Michael Hendrik Veldman and Mr Gerhadus Wilhemus van der Linde (Actuary).