Kruger v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT336/17) [2019] ZACC 13; 2019 (6) BCLR 703 (CC) (9 April 2019)

Kruger v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT336/17) [2019] ZACC 13; 2019 (6) BCLR 703 (CC) (9 April 2019)

The Constitutional Court held that section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires a claimant to have knowledge of all material facts from which the debt arises, including facts supporting allegations of bad faith and lack of reasonable and probable cause in malicious prosecution. The applicant did not have such knowledge until August 2012, when his attorney received the police docket and discovered the Investigating Officer's statement. The respondent failed to show that the applicant had knowledge of these facts as at 13 October 2009. Therefore, prescription did not begin to run until August 2012, and the claim had not prescribed by January 2013. The High Court erred in holding that...

Citation
[2019] ZACC 13
Parties
Applicant: Arrie Willem Kruger; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2019
Case Number
CCT 336/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal of Action and Appeals in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Mogoeng, Zondo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Malicious Prosecution, Access to Court, Bill of Rights Limitation, Condonation, Biowatch Costs Principle
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prescription Act Malicious Prosecution Access to Court Bill of Rights Limitation Condonation +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arrie Willem Kruger

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal of Action and Appeals in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 12(3) of the Prescription Act require knowledge of all material facts, including those supporting bad faith, before prescription begins to run against a claim for malicious prosecution?
  2. 2 Did the applicant have knowledge of all facts from which the debt arose prior to August 2012, or only after receiving the police docket?
  3. 3 Was the High Court correct in upholding the special plea of prescription based solely on the withdrawal of charges?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires a claimant to have knowledge of all material facts from which the debt arises, including facts supporting allegations of bad faith and lack of reasonable and probable cause in malicious prosecution. The applicant did not have such knowledge until August 2012, when his attorney received the police docket and discovered the Investigating Officer's statement. The respondent failed to show that the applicant had knowledge of these facts as at 13 October 2009. Therefore, prescription did not begin to run until August 2012, and the claim had not prescribed by January 2013. The High Court erred in holding that...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • Condonation for late delivery of the application is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted.