Mabaso v Coetzer (1825/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 225 (28 November 2014)

Mabaso v Coetzer (1825/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 225 (28 November 2014)

The court found that the defendant did accept a mandate from the plaintiff to lodge and prosecute her claim against the Road Accident Fund, as evidenced by the contents of the letter dated 10 March 2008, which referenced a breach of trust and termination of mandate. The plaintiff was an unsophisticated person who relied on the defendant's assurances and made reasonable enquiries about her claim. The court rejected the defendant's version that the plaintiff was made aware of the termination of the mandate and the impending prescription. The plaintiff only became aware of the defendant's failure to lodge her claim on 10 April 2013, when she consulted her current attorney. The defendant...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 225
Parties
Plaintiff: Mzondase Ingrid Mabaso; Defendant: Charl Coetzer
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Case Number
1825/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea on Prescription
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed. Costs reserved for determination by the trial court.
Judges
Moeng
Legal Topics
Extinctive Prescription, Mandate, Road Accident Fund Claim, Reasonable Care, Onus of Proof
Civil Procedure Extinctive Prescription Mandate Road Accident Fund Claim Reasonable Care Onus 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzondase Ingrid Mabaso

Plaintiff

Charl Coetzer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant prescribed before summons was served.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant accepted a mandate to lodge and prosecute the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had knowledge, or is deemed to have had knowledge, of the facts giving rise to the debt before 10 April 2013.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant did accept a mandate from the plaintiff to lodge and prosecute her claim against the Road Accident Fund, as evidenced by the contents of the letter dated 10 March 2008, which referenced a breach of trust and termination of mandate. The plaintiff was an unsophisticated person who relied on the defendant's assurances and made reasonable enquiries about her claim. The court rejected the defendant's version that the plaintiff was made aware of the termination of the mandate and the impending prescription. The plaintiff only became aware of the defendant's failure to lodge her claim on 10 April 2013, when she consulted her current attorney. The defendant...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed. Costs reserved for determination by the trial court.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed.
  • The costs are reserved for determination by the trial court.