Macleod v Kweyiya (365/12) [2013] ZASCA 28; 2013 (6) SA 1 (SCA) (27 March 2013)

Macleod v Kweyiya (365/12) [2013] ZASCA 28; 2013 (6) SA 1 (SCA) (27 March 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim or the identity of the debtor before April 2006. The respondent's reliance on her mother and the appellant was reasonable and innocent, and there was no evidence of negligence in her delay. Prescription only began to run when she received the relevant documents in April 2006, and her claim was instituted within the three-year period. The court found no basis to draw an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to testify, as the facts were largely common cause and there was nothing in the appellant's evidence requiring...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 28
Parties
Appellant: Charles Robert Macleod; Respondent: Babalwa Kweyiya
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Case Number
365/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mthiyane, Tshiqi, Majiedt, Plasket, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Constructive Knowledge, Burden of Proof, Delictual Claim, Negligence
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Constructive Knowledge Burden of Proof Delictual Claim Negligence

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

Parties

Charles Robert Macleod

Appellant

Babalwa Kweyiya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim for damages against the appellant had prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim before April 2006.
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference should be drawn from the respondent's failure to testify regarding her knowledge or conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim or the identity of the debtor before April 2006. The respondent's reliance on her mother and the appellant was reasonable and innocent, and there was no evidence of negligence in her delay. Prescription only began to run when she received the relevant documents in April 2006, and her claim was instituted within the three-year period. The court found no basis to draw an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to testify, as the facts were largely common cause and there was nothing in the appellant's evidence requiring...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.