Lombo v African National Congress (17/2001) [2002] ZASCA 61; [2002] 3 All SA 517 (A); 2002 (5) SA 668 (SCA) (30 May 2002)

Lombo v African National Congress (17/2001) [2002] ZASCA 61; [2002] 3 All SA 517 (A); 2002 (5) SA 668 (SCA) (30 May 2002)

The court held that the appellant's claims for assault, maltreatment, and deprivation of property were prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, as they arose more than three years before summons was served and no valid interruption of prescription was proved. The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia did not apply, as section 13(1) of the Act provided a statutory remedy, granting the appellant one year after release to institute action, which he failed to do. Regarding unlawful detention, the court found that each day of detention constituted a separate cause of action, and only claims for detention from 23 November 1990 to August 1991 were not prescribed. The initial...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 61
Parties
Appellant: S B Lombo; Respondent: African National Congress
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2002
Case Number
17/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Durban and Coast Local Division; Judgment on Prescription and Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel up to and including preparation of respondent's heads of argument.
Judges
Smalberger, Olivier, Streicher, Farlam, Navsa
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Unlawful Detention, Assault and Maltreatment, Geneva Conventions, Acknowledgment of Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Prescription Act Unlawful Detention Assault and Maltreatment Geneva Conventions Acknowledgment of 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S B Lombo

Appellant

African National Congress

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Durban and Coast Local Division; Judgment on Prescription and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claims for assault, maltreatment, and deprivation of property are prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's claim for unlawful detention for the period 23 November 1990 to August 1991 is prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the initial and continued detention of the appellant by the ANC was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's claims for assault, maltreatment, and deprivation of property were prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, as they arose more than three years before summons was served and no valid interruption of prescription was proved. The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia did not apply, as section 13(1) of the Act provided a statutory remedy, granting the appellant one year after release to institute action, which he failed to do. Regarding unlawful detention, the court found that each day of detention constituted a separate cause of action, and only claims for detention from 23 November 1990 to August 1991 were not prescribed. The initial...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel up to and including preparation of respondent's heads of argument.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel up to and including the stage of preparation of the respondent's heads of argument.