Mokau v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd (19825/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 135 (3 July 2015)

Mokau v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd (19825/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 135 (3 July 2015)

The court found that the material facts supporting the plaintiff’s claim were overtly apparent from the time of the incident, and that in the ordinary course, the plaintiff or his guardian would have had sufficient knowledge to institute proceedings within the prescriptive period. Eskom established a prima facie case for prescription based on the pleadings, and the evidentiary burden shifted to the plaintiff to rebut this case. The plaintiff failed to plead or present evidence of any peculiar circumstances explaining the delay in seeking legal advice. The court held that the plaintiff’s reliance on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act was insufficient without supporting evidence, and...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 135
Parties
Plaintiff: Moeketsi Gilbert Mokau; Defendant: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 July 2015
Case Number
19825/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
R Keightley
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea, Onus of Proof, Delictual Liability, Minority Impediment
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Special Plea Onus of Proof Delictual Liability Minority Impediment

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moeketsi Gilbert Mokau

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for delictual damages against Eskom prescribed before summons was issued.
  2. 2 Whether Eskom established a prima facie case that the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge to institute his claim within the prescriptive period.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's reliance on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act is sufficient to defeat the special plea of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the material facts supporting the plaintiff’s claim were overtly apparent from the time of the incident, and that in the ordinary course, the plaintiff or his guardian would have had sufficient knowledge to institute proceedings within the prescriptive period. Eskom established a prima facie case for prescription based on the pleadings, and the evidentiary burden shifted to the plaintiff to rebut this case. The plaintiff failed to plead or present evidence of any peculiar circumstances explaining the delay in seeking legal advice. The court held that the plaintiff’s reliance on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act was insufficient without supporting evidence, and...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • In terms of Rule 33(4), the defendant’s special plea of prescription is determined as a separate question.
  • The defendant’s special plea of prescription is upheld.