Nhlabathi v Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency (15315/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 219 (23 April 2015)

Nhlabathi v Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency (15315/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 219 (23 April 2015)

The court found that the defendant, by making partial payments and admitting in correspondence that further amounts were due, had interrupted the running of prescription. The correspondence dated June 2010 constituted an express acknowledgement of liability, and prescription could only resume from that date. The summons was issued in March 2013, within the three-year period from the date of interruption. The court held that the applicant's right to claim had not prescribed and dismissed the special plea with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 219
Parties
Applicant: Hazel Nhlabathi; Respondent: Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Case Number
15315/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Special Plea of Prescription; Judgment on Special Plea
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs; applicant's claim not prescribed.
Judges
Mavundla
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Pension Fund Benefits, Interruption of Prescription, Acknowledgement of Liability
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Prescription Act Pension Fund Benefits Interruption of Prescription Acknowledgement of Liability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hazel Nhlabathi

Applicant

Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Special Plea of Prescription; Judgment on Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for pension fund benefits has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's partial payments and correspondence interrupted the running of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's withdrawal of the magistrate's court action and subsequent High Court summons affected prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, by making partial payments and admitting in correspondence that further amounts were due, had interrupted the running of prescription. The correspondence dated June 2010 constituted an express acknowledgement of liability, and prescription could only resume from that date. The summons was issued in March 2013, within the three-year period from the date of interruption. The court held that the applicant's right to claim had not prescribed and dismissed the special plea with costs.

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs; applicant's claim not prescribed.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the special plea.