Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 32 (8 May 2018)

Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 32 (8 May 2018)

The court held that the appellant's claim arose from the wrongful disbursement of his funds by the respondent's employee on 28 October 2010, which constituted the harm. The appellant had actual knowledge of the wrongful payment and its consequences by the end of 2010, as evidenced by discussions with Ms Amsterdam and his subsequent actions to secure transfer. Even if the appellant only became aware of the impossibility of transfer in May 2012, prescription commenced to run at the latest on 18 May 2012. The court distinguished this case from Kelbrick v Nelson Attorneys, noting that the harm here was suffered immediately upon wrongful payment, not upon later failure of transfer. The...

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 32
Parties
Appellant: Mbulelo Mtati; Respondent: Whitesides Attorneys
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2018
Case Number
CA78/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Dismissal of Claim Based on Prescription
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
J W Eksteen, B R Tokota, T P Mageza
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 12, Running of Prescription, Attorney Duty of Care, Wrongful Disbursement, Delictual Claim, Knowledge of Debt
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Section 12 Running of Prescription Attorney Duty of Care Wrongful Disbursement Delictual Claim Knowledge of Debt

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbulelo Mtati

Appellant

Whitesides Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Dismissal of Claim Based on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does prescription commence to run for a delictual claim against an attorney for wrongful disbursement of trust funds.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had actual or deemed knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt before the prescribed period expired.
  3. 3 Whether subsequent conduct by the respondent delayed the running of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's claim arose from the wrongful disbursement of his funds by the respondent's employee on 28 October 2010, which constituted the harm. The appellant had actual knowledge of the wrongful payment and its consequences by the end of 2010, as evidenced by discussions with Ms Amsterdam and his subsequent actions to secure transfer. Even if the appellant only became aware of the impossibility of transfer in May 2012, prescription commenced to run at the latest on 18 May 2012. The court distinguished this case from Kelbrick v Nelson Attorneys, noting that the harm here was suffered immediately upon wrongful payment, not upon later failure of transfer. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.