Mandela v Amsterdam (CA 102/2010) [2010] ZAECGHC 72 (23 August 2010)

Mandela v Amsterdam (CA 102/2010) [2010] ZAECGHC 72 (23 August 2010)

The court held that the cause of action for malicious proceedings arises only after the successful termination of the proceedings in the plaintiff's favour, not when the disciplinary proceedings commence. The magistrate was bound by the decision in Els v Minister of Law and Order and Others and other established authorities, which clearly state that the cause of action accrues upon termination of proceedings. The magistrate's reliance on cases dealing with the prescription of debts under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act was misplaced, as those cases do not address the accrual of a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The appellant's claim was for malicious proceedings, not...

Citation
[2010] ZAECGHC 72
Parties
Appellant: Anderson Lumkile Mandela; Respondent: Sedrick Simon Amsterdam
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2010
Case Number
CA 102/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal allowed; special plea of prescription dismissed.
Judges
Chetty, Beshe
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Prescription Act, Actio Iniuriarum, Judicial Precedent
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Prescription Act Actio Iniuriarum Judicial Precedent

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anderson Lumkile Mandela

Appellant

Sedrick Simon Amsterdam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the cause of action for malicious proceedings arise for purposes of prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in upholding the special plea of prescription based on the commencement date of disciplinary proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the claim was for malicious proceedings or defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the cause of action for malicious proceedings arises only after the successful termination of the proceedings in the plaintiff's favour, not when the disciplinary proceedings commence. The magistrate was bound by the decision in Els v Minister of Law and Order and Others and other established authorities, which clearly state that the cause of action accrues upon termination of proceedings. The magistrate's reliance on cases dealing with the prescription of debts under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act was misplaced, as those cases do not address the accrual of a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The appellant's claim was for malicious proceedings, not...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; special plea of prescription dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The judgment of the court below is set aside and replaced by: 'The special plea is dismissed with costs.'