Jakobo v Grimbeek (380/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 117 (7 August 2014)

Jakobo v Grimbeek (380/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 117 (7 August 2014)

The court found that the plaintiff, after reaching majority in 2004, did nothing to pursue his claim for nearly ten years, despite having knowledge of the facts and the identity of the defendant. The defendant's file was closed and destroyed due to the passage of time, and the defendant could not recall the details of the matter. The court held that the plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence as required by the Prescription Act, and that the delay was not excusable. The plaintiff was not incapacitated or prevented from acting, and the facts did not support a finding that the defendant was liable for the loss of the claim. The special plea of prescription was upheld, and the...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 117
Parties
Plaintiff: Mziwandile Alfred Jakobo; Defendant: Johannes Petrus Louis Grimbeek
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2014
Case Number
380/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated for Adjudication
Outcome
Special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kruger, R
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea of Prescription, Professional Negligence, Reasonable Diligence, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Special Plea of Prescription Professional Negligence Reasonable Diligence Burden of Proof

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 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mziwandile Alfred Jakobo

Plaintiff

Johannes Petrus Louis Grimbeek

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated for Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, a practising attorney, has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing his claim and acquiring knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can be held liable for failing to lodge the plaintiff's claim with the Road Accident Fund.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, after reaching majority in 2004, did nothing to pursue his claim for nearly ten years, despite having knowledge of the facts and the identity of the defendant. The defendant's file was closed and destroyed due to the passage of time, and the defendant could not recall the details of the matter. The court held that the plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence as required by the Prescription Act, and that the delay was not excusable. The plaintiff was not incapacitated or prevented from acting, and the facts did not support a finding that the defendant was liable for the loss of the claim. The special plea of prescription was upheld, and the...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.