Mmangweni v Minister of Police (1915/16) [2018] ZAECMHC 7 (8 February 2018)

Mmangweni v Minister of Police (1915/16) [2018] ZAECMHC 7 (8 February 2018)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim had prescribed because he knew the identity of the debtor (the police) and the facts giving rise to the debt (the assault) at the time of the incident in July 2008. His subsequent lack of knowledge of his legal right to sue or his delay in seeking legal advice did not delay the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. The court distinguished the facts from Shange, where the claimant was a minor and lacked knowledge of the debtor's identity due to misleading information. In this case, the plaintiff's delay was unreasonable, and the prescription period commenced on the date of the assault. The special plea of prescription...

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Ntabozuko Mmangweni; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2018
Case Number
1915/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined on Stated Case Under Rule 33
Outcome
Defendant's special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Z. M. Nhlangulela
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea, Knowledge of Debt, Running of Prescription
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Special Plea Knowledge of Debt Running of Prescription

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntabozuko Mmangweni

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined on Stated Case Under Rule 33

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from assault by police employees has become prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his legal right to sue the defendant delays the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff knew the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises as required by section 12(3) of the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim had prescribed because he knew the identity of the debtor (the police) and the facts giving rise to the debt (the assault) at the time of the incident in July 2008. His subsequent lack of knowledge of his legal right to sue or his delay in seeking legal advice did not delay the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. The court distinguished the facts from Shange, where the claimant was a minor and lacked knowledge of the debtor's identity due to misleading information. In this case, the plaintiff's delay was unreasonable, and the prescription period commenced on the date of the assault. The special plea of prescription...

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld.
  • The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.