M.M v Henley Air (Pty) Ltd (7470/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 29 (2 April 2024)

M.M v Henley Air (Pty) Ltd (7470/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 29 (2 April 2024)

The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead interruption of prescription in her particulars of claim and did not file a replication after the defendant raised prescription by special plea. The issue of interruption was only raised in heads of argument, which is procedurally improper and prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant's without prejudice letter did not contain an unequivocal acknowledgment of liability and expressly denied liability, thus falling outside the exception established in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investment. The defendant was entitled to raise prescription by special plea, and there was no procedural defect in doing so. Admitting the without prejudice...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 29
Parties
Plaintiff: M[...] M[...]; Defendant: Henley Air (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
7470/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated for Prior Determination Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Defendant's objection to admission of the without prejudice letter in evidence is upheld.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea, Interruption of Prescription, Without Prejudice Rule, Pleadings Requirements
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Special Plea Interruption of Prescription Without Prejudice Rule Pleadings Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] M[...]

Plaintiff

Henley Air (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Separated for Prior Determination Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's without prejudice settlement proposal dated 8 December 2020 should be admitted in evidence as an exception to the general rule for the limited purpose of showing interruption of prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was correct to raise the defence of prescription by way of a special plea rather than by exception.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead interruption of prescription in her particulars of claim and did not file a replication after the defendant raised prescription by special plea. The issue of interruption was only raised in heads of argument, which is procedurally improper and prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant's without prejudice letter did not contain an unequivocal acknowledgment of liability and expressly denied liability, thus falling outside the exception established in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investment. The defendant was entitled to raise prescription by special plea, and there was no procedural defect in doing so. Admitting the without prejudice...

Court Disposition

Defendant's objection to admission of the without prejudice letter in evidence is upheld.

Orders

  • The defendant's objection to the admission of its without prejudice letter dated 20 December 2020 in evidence is upheld.
  • Costs will be costs in the main action.