Kekana v Road Accident Fund (206/2017) [2018] ZASCA 75 (31 May 2018)

Kekana v Road Accident Fund (206/2017) [2018] ZASCA 75 (31 May 2018)

The court held that the appellant had knowledge of all the facts giving rise to the debt by 1999, when he accepted the settlement offer from the Road Accident Fund, even if he was dissatisfied with the amount. The subsequent information obtained in 2013 was a legal conclusion, not a new fact. The requirements of fault and unlawfulness are legal conclusions, not factual ingredients. Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act deems a creditor to have knowledge if he could have acquired it by exercising reasonable care. The appellant, as a police officer, ought to have known he could seek legal advice at any time. His failure to appreciate the legal consequences did not delay prescription. The...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 75
Parties
Appellant: Ntuntu David Kekana; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Case Number
206/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Shongwe, Leach, Mbha, Pillay, Mothle
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 12 3, Special Plea of Prescription, Knowledge of Facts, Settlement Offer, Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Section 12 3 Special Plea of Prescription Knowledge of Facts Settlement Offer Duty of Care

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntuntu David Kekana

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had actual or deemed knowledge of the facts from which the debt arose for purposes of prescription under s 12(3) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the acceptance of the settlement offer in 1999 constituted knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt.
  3. 3 Whether subsequent legal advice or new information in 2013 delayed the running of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant had knowledge of all the facts giving rise to the debt by 1999, when he accepted the settlement offer from the Road Accident Fund, even if he was dissatisfied with the amount. The subsequent information obtained in 2013 was a legal conclusion, not a new fact. The requirements of fault and unlawfulness are legal conclusions, not factual ingredients. Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act deems a creditor to have knowledge if he could have acquired it by exercising reasonable care. The appellant, as a police officer, ought to have known he could seek legal advice at any time. His failure to appreciate the legal consequences did not delay prescription. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.