Mbhiiyozo v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (3133/2023) [2024] ZAECMHC 55 (25 June 2024)

Mbhiiyozo v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (3133/2023) [2024] ZAECMHC 55 (25 June 2024)

The defendant's special plea of prescription was premised on the date of the incident, not on the date the plaintiff attained majority. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the incident, and prescription only commenced when he attained majority in July 2011. The defendant did not plead facts relating to prescription running from the date of majority, and the attempt to introduce this at trial was impermissible. The court is prohibited by section 17(1) of the Prescription Act from mero motu raising prescription not pleaded. As the defendant failed to prove prescription on the pleaded facts, the special plea must be dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZAECMHC 55
Parties
Plaintiff: Odwa Mbhiiyozo; Defendant: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2024
Case Number
3133/2023
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Hearing and Determination of Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Defendant's special plea of prescription dismissed; costs awarded against defendant.
Judges
Zono
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea, Minority and Prescription, Pleading Requirements, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Special Plea Minority and Prescription Pleading Requirements Vicarious 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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Odwa Mbhiiyozo

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Hearing and Determination of Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's special plea of prescription is supported by the facts pleaded.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's minority status delayed the running of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's special plea of prescription was premised on the date of the incident, not on the date the plaintiff attained majority. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the incident, and prescription only commenced when he attained majority in July 2011. The defendant did not plead facts relating to prescription running from the date of majority, and the attempt to introduce this at trial was impermissible. The court is prohibited by section 17(1) of the Prescription Act from mero motu raising prescription not pleaded. As the defendant failed to prove prescription on the pleaded facts, the special plea must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea of prescription dismissed; costs awarded against defendant.

Orders

  • The defendant’s special plea of prescription is hereby dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay all costs occasioned by raising and hearing of the special plea.