Rademeyer v Ferreira (343/2021) [2022] ZASCA 92 (17 June 2022)

Rademeyer v Ferreira (343/2021) [2022] ZASCA 92 (17 June 2022)

The Court held that the service of the notice of motion in the 2012 application for a declaratory order, alternatively damages, constituted a step in the enforcement of the claim for payment of a debt and interrupted the running of prescription in relation to the damages claim. The damages claim was based on the same facts and right as the claim for specific performance, and the right to claim damages formed part of the order granted by Pickering J. The respondent could not have succeeded in the damages claim without first establishing the appellant's liability for damages, which was established by the order when the appellant failed to comply. The subsequent issuing of summons in 2016 to...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 92
Parties
Appellant: Dion Rademeyer; Respondent: Thomas Ignatius Ferreira
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Case Number
343/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Matojane, Makgoka, Plasket, Gorven, Smith
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Contract Cancellation, Damages Claim, Judicial Interruption of Prescription
Civil Procedure Land and Property Prescription Act Contract Cancellation Damages Claim Judicial Interruption of Prescription

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dion Rademeyer

Appellant

Thomas Ignatius Ferreira

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's damages claim instituted in April 2016 had prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the initial application for cancellation and damages under a different case number constituted a step in enforcement of the claim for payment of a debt under the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the service of the notice of motion in the 2012 application for a declaratory order, alternatively damages, constituted a step in the enforcement of the claim for payment of a debt and interrupted the running of prescription in relation to the damages claim. The damages claim was based on the same facts and right as the claim for specific performance, and the right to claim damages formed part of the order granted by Pickering J. The respondent could not have succeeded in the damages claim without first establishing the appellant's liability for damages, which was established by the order when the appellant failed to comply. The subsequent issuing of summons in 2016 to...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.