Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee and Seuns and Another (CCT 117/22) [2023] ZACC 46; 2024 (4) BCLR 522 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 1 (CC) (18 December 2023)

Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee and Seuns and Another (CCT 117/22) [2023] ZACC 46; 2024 (4) BCLR 522 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 1 (CC) (18 December 2023)

The Constitutional Court held that, in professional negligence claims against legal practitioners, the general rule that legal conclusions are not facts for prescription purposes must yield to a limited exception. Where a client cannot reasonably know of the breach of mandate or incorrect advice without a legal conclusion—such as a court ruling or expert opinion—prescription does not commence until that knowledge is acquired. In this case, the applicants only became aware of the breach during cross-examination in November 2007, when the invalidity of the option exercise was revealed as a legal conclusion. The Court found that to hold otherwise would be unjust and contrary to the right of...

Citation
[2023] ZACC 46
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Paul le Roux; Applicant: Johanna Catharina le Roux; Respondent: Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns; Respondent: Daniel Cornelius Coetzee
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2023
Case Number
CCT 117/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Prescription Special Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Supreme Court of Appeal order set aside; applicants awarded costs including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Maya DCJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J, Van Zyl AJ
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 12 3, Professional Negligence, Breach of Mandate, Alienation of Land Act, Access to Court, Legal Conclusion Exception
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Prescription Act Section 12 3 Professional Negligence Breach of Mandate Alienation of Land Act Access to Court +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Paul le Roux

Applicant

Johanna Catharina le Roux

Applicant

Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns

Respondent

Daniel Cornelius Coetzee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Prescription Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act begin to run against a client suing a legal practitioner for professional negligence before the client knows the advice was incorrect?
  2. 2 Can knowledge of a legal conclusion form part of the 'facts' required for prescription to commence in professional negligence claims against attorneys?
  3. 3 On the agreed facts, when did the applicants acquire actual or constructive knowledge of the breach of mandate?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that, in professional negligence claims against legal practitioners, the general rule that legal conclusions are not facts for prescription purposes must yield to a limited exception. Where a client cannot reasonably know of the breach of mandate or incorrect advice without a legal conclusion—such as a court ruling or expert opinion—prescription does not commence until that knowledge is acquired. In this case, the applicants only became aware of the breach during cross-examination in November 2007, when the invalidity of the option exercise was revealed as a legal conclusion. The Court found that to hold otherwise would be unjust and contrary to the right of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Supreme Court of Appeal order set aside; applicants awarded costs including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.