Pretorius v Bedwell (659/2020) [2022] ZASCA 4 (11 January 2022)

Pretorius v Bedwell (659/2020) [2022] ZASCA 4 (11 January 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the special plea of prescription failed both in law and on the facts. The appellant did not allege or prove that the respondent accepted the alleged repudiation or cancelled the contract on 8 April 2008. The respondent's evidence, which was not discredited, indicated that he did not accept any repudiation on that date. The cause of action for damages only accrues when the innocent party communicates acceptance of repudiation to the repudiating party. Therefore, the appellant failed to prove that prescription commenced running on 8 April 2008. The full court was correct to dismiss the special plea of prescription.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 4
Parties
Appellant: Dave Pretorius; Respondent: Kenneth Bedwell
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 January 2022
Case Number
659/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Der Merwe, Mokgohloa, Hughes, Phatshoane, Weiner
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Repudiation of Contract, Damages Claim, Special Plea, Contract Cancellation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Repudiation of Contract Damages Claim Special Plea Contract Cancellation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dave Pretorius

Appellant

Kenneth Bedwell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does prescription commence to run for a damages claim based on acceptance of repudiation of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the special plea of prescription was correctly dismissed by the full court.
  3. 3 Whether the innocent party's cause of action accrues upon communication of acceptance of repudiation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the special plea of prescription failed both in law and on the facts. The appellant did not allege or prove that the respondent accepted the alleged repudiation or cancelled the contract on 8 April 2008. The respondent's evidence, which was not discredited, indicated that he did not accept any repudiation on that date. The cause of action for damages only accrues when the innocent party communicates acceptance of repudiation to the repudiating party. Therefore, the appellant failed to prove that prescription commenced running on 8 April 2008. The full court was correct to dismiss the special plea of prescription.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.