Holeni v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa (266/08) [2009] ZASCA 9; 2009 (4) SA 437 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 22 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 358 (KZP) (17 March 2009)

Holeni v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa (266/08) [2009] ZASCA 9; 2009 (4) SA 437 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 22 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 358 (KZP) (17 March 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa is a separate juristic person, distinct from the State, despite government control and accountability. The term 'the State' in section 11(b) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 refers narrowly to the government as a legal entity acting for the treasury, not to organs of state or statutory bodies. The 15-year prescription period is an exception intended to protect the treasury, and should not be extended to entities like the bank. The three-year prescription period under section 11(d) applies to the bank's claims against Mr Holeni. The court rejected the bank's argument that the spirit and...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Ingwane Nelson Holeni; Respondent: Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Case Number
266/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pretoria (motata J)
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside; special pleas of prescription upheld; both claims dismissed.
Judges
Streicher, Navsa, Cloete, Jafta, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea of Prescription, State Liability, Interpretation of Statutes
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Special Plea of Prescription State Liability Interpretation of Statutes

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ingwane Nelson Holeni

Appellant

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pretoria (motata J)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa qualify as 'the State' under section 11(b) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 for purposes of the 15-year prescription period?
  2. 2 Should the three-year or 15-year prescription period apply to the bank's claims against Mr Holeni?
  3. 3 Is the bank entitled to recover instalments that fell outside the three-year prescription period?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa is a separate juristic person, distinct from the State, despite government control and accountability. The term 'the State' in section 11(b) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 refers narrowly to the government as a legal entity acting for the treasury, not to organs of state or statutory bodies. The 15-year prescription period is an exception intended to protect the treasury, and should not be extended to entities like the bank. The three-year prescription period under section 11(d) applies to the bank's claims against Mr Holeni. The court rejected the bank's argument that the spirit and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside; special pleas of prescription upheld; both claims dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with: '1. The defendant's special pleas to the plaintiff's first and second claims are upheld and both claims are dismissed. 2. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs.'