Julies v Peter McKenzie Attorneys (1117/2019) [2021] ZAECPEHC 49 (7 September 2021)

Julies v Peter McKenzie Attorneys (1117/2019) [2021] ZAECPEHC 49 (7 September 2021)

The court found that the shooting of Mr Julies was prima facie unlawful and no justification was established by the Minister of Police. Masimla Attorneys accepted a mandate to institute proceedings but failed to do so, causing the claim to prescribe, which constituted a negligent breach of mandate. Peter McKenzie Attorneys accepted a mandate to pursue a claim against Masimla Attorneys but failed to act timeously, resulting in the prescription of the claim. The court held that prescription of the claim against Masimla Attorneys commenced in November 2015 when Mr Julies first became aware of the breach, and prescribed in November 2018. McKenzie Attorneys were negligent in failing to issue...

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 49
Parties
Plaintiff: Tarquin Julies; Defendant: Peter McKenzie t/a Peter McKenzie Attorneys
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2021
Case Number
1117/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Judgment Following Separation of Issues
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant found liable for damages to be proven and ordered to pay costs.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Prescription Act, Breach of Mandate, Damages, Legal Professional Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Prescription Act Breach of Mandate Damages Legal Professional Liability

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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarquin Julies

Plaintiff

Peter McKenzie t/a Peter McKenzie Attorneys

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Judgment Following Separation of Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the shooting of Mr Julies wrongful and unlawful.
  2. 2 Did Masimla Attorneys negligently permit the claim against the Minister of Police to prescribe.
  3. 3 Did Peter McKenzie Attorneys negligently permit the plaintiff’s claim against Masimla Attorneys to prescribe.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the shooting of Mr Julies was prima facie unlawful and no justification was established by the Minister of Police. Masimla Attorneys accepted a mandate to institute proceedings but failed to do so, causing the claim to prescribe, which constituted a negligent breach of mandate. Peter McKenzie Attorneys accepted a mandate to pursue a claim against Masimla Attorneys but failed to act timeously, resulting in the prescription of the claim. The court held that prescription of the claim against Masimla Attorneys commenced in November 2015 when Mr Julies first became aware of the breach, and prescribed in November 2018. McKenzie Attorneys were negligent in failing to issue...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant found liable for damages to be proven and ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff such damages as the plaintiff is able to prove that he has suffered in consequence of the shooting which occurred on 6 December 2008.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of suit.