Moreotlotlo v Monama (45608/2012) [2018] ZAGPPHC 725 (15 March 2018)

Moreotlotlo v Monama (45608/2012) [2018] ZAGPPHC 725 (15 March 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff became aware of the existence of the debt on 9 August 2009, and her claim against the defendant for professional negligence would have prescribed on 8 August 2012. The summons was only served on 29 October 2012, after the prescription period had lapsed. The application for leave to institute action did not interrupt prescription. The plaintiff's attorney failed to ensure that the summons was served timeously, despite knowing the defendant's whereabouts. The court upheld the special plea of prescription and dismissed the action. Given the attorney's failure to act with the required professionalism and expertise, the court ordered that costs be borne by...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 725
Parties
Plaintiff: Koketso Frieda Moreotlotlo; Defendant: Ramarumo Monama
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Case Number
45608/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Tried Separately Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Special plea of prescription upheld; action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokgohloa DJP
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Prescription Act, Road Accident Fund Act, Special Plea, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Delict Professional Negligence Prescription Act Road Accident Fund Act Special Plea Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koketso Frieda Moreotlotlo

Plaintiff

Ramarumo Monama

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Tried Separately Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for professional negligence has prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's attorney should be ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff became aware of the existence of the debt on 9 August 2009, and her claim against the defendant for professional negligence would have prescribed on 8 August 2012. The summons was only served on 29 October 2012, after the prescription period had lapsed. The application for leave to institute action did not interrupt prescription. The plaintiff's attorney failed to ensure that the summons was served timeously, despite knowing the defendant's whereabouts. The court upheld the special plea of prescription and dismissed the action. Given the attorney's failure to act with the required professionalism and expertise, the court ordered that costs be borne by...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription upheld; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea is upheld, and the action is dismissed with costs.
  • Such costs to be borne by the plaintiff's attorney de bonis propriis.