Kweyiya v Macleod (7236/2009) [2012] ZAWCHC 24 (10 April 2012)

Kweyiya v Macleod (7236/2009) [2012] ZAWCHC 24 (10 April 2012)

The court found that the defendant bore the onus to prove that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts material to her claim before 19 April 2006. The evidence established that the plaintiff only became aware of the terms and quantum of the settlement on 19 April 2006, when Ms. Stroud provided her with relevant documentation. The defendant failed to show that the plaintiff could reasonably have acquired such knowledge earlier by exercising reasonable care. The mere knowledge of a settlement and the purchase of a house was insufficient; the plaintiff needed to know the terms and quantum to infer possible negligence. The protection afforded to minors under Section 13...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 24
Parties
Plaintiff: Babalwa Kweyiya; Defendant: Charles Robert Roger MacLeod
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 April 2012
Case Number
7236/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.A.L. Gamble
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Professional Negligence, Constructive Knowledge, Minority Delay, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Professional Negligence Constructive Knowledge Minority Delay 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babalwa Kweyiya

Plaintiff

Charles Robert Roger MacLeod

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for professional negligence and breach of contract has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt before 19 April 2006.
  3. 3 Whether the protection afforded to minors under Section 13 of the Prescription Act delayed the running of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant bore the onus to prove that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts material to her claim before 19 April 2006. The evidence established that the plaintiff only became aware of the terms and quantum of the settlement on 19 April 2006, when Ms. Stroud provided her with relevant documentation. The defendant failed to show that the plaintiff could reasonably have acquired such knowledge earlier by exercising reasonable care. The mere knowledge of a settlement and the purchase of a house was insufficient; the plaintiff needed to know the terms and quantum to infer possible negligence. The protection afforded to minors under Section 13...

Court Disposition

The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the special plea.