Holden v Assmang Limited (1277/2019) [2020] ZASCA 145; 2021 (6) SA 345 (SCA) (5 November 2020)

Holden v Assmang Limited (1277/2019) [2020] ZASCA 145; 2021 (6) SA 345 (SCA) (5 November 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's cause of action for malicious proceedings only arose when the HPCSA notified her that the respondent's complaint had been dismissed, which was on 13 November 2009. Prescription could not begin to run until the proceedings were terminated in her favour, as this is a necessary element of the claim. The court rejected the respondent's argument that prescription began earlier, finding that the requirements for malicious prosecution apply equally to proceedings before statutory professional tribunals such as the HPCSA. The court clarified that the claim was not based on injury to reputation or dignity, but solely on malicious proceedings....

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 145
Parties
Appellant: Linda Holden; Respondent: Assmang Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2020
Case Number
1277/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment; Special Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the full court set aside and replaced with dismissal of the respondent's special plea of prescription.
Judges
Ponnan, Molemela, Dlodlo, Eksteen, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Malicious Prosecution, Cause of Action Completion, Professional Tribunal Proceedings
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action Completion Professional Tribunal Proceedings

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Holden

Appellant

Assmang Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment; Special Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does prescription begin to run for a claim based on malicious proceedings before a statutory professional tribunal?
  2. 2 Is the completion of the cause of action dependent on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings?
  3. 3 Did the appellant's claim prescribe before summons was issued?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's cause of action for malicious proceedings only arose when the HPCSA notified her that the respondent's complaint had been dismissed, which was on 13 November 2009. Prescription could not begin to run until the proceedings were terminated in her favour, as this is a necessary element of the claim. The court rejected the respondent's argument that prescription began earlier, finding that the requirements for malicious prosecution apply equally to proceedings before statutory professional tribunals such as the HPCSA. The court clarified that the claim was not based on injury to reputation or dignity, but solely on malicious proceedings....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the full court set aside and replaced with dismissal of the respondent's special plea of prescription.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'