Road stone Civil & Paving Contractors CC v Bco Construction (Pty) Ltd (24284/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 237 (20 September 2013)

Road stone Civil & Paving Contractors CC v Bco Construction (Pty) Ltd (24284/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 237 (20 September 2013)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that prescription was interrupted by an acknowledgment of liability. The letter dated 24 November 2010 did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt as required by section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. The last payment made by the defendant on 18 November 2008 confirmed that the debt was due and payable at that time. The plaintiff did not present evidence to substantiate its assertion that prescription was interrupted or suspended and recommenced on 1 February 2011. The court held that prescription commenced running on 18 November 2008 and, as the summons was served on 26 June 2012, the claim had prescribed. The special plea of...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 237
Parties
Plaintiff: Road stone Civil & Paving Contractors CC; Defendant: BCO Construction (Proprietary) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Case Number
24284/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs; special plea of prescription upheld.
Judges
N D Tshabalala
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Oral Contract, Compromise Agreement, Acknowledgment of Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Oral Contract Compromise Agreement Acknowledgment 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road stone Civil & Paving Contractors CC

Plaintiff

BCO Construction (Proprietary) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the letter dated 24 November 2010 constituted an acknowledgment of debt sufficient to interrupt prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the oral compromise agreement altered the date on which the debt became due.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that prescription was interrupted by an acknowledgment of liability. The letter dated 24 November 2010 did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt as required by section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. The last payment made by the defendant on 18 November 2008 confirmed that the debt was due and payable at that time. The plaintiff did not present evidence to substantiate its assertion that prescription was interrupted or suspended and recommenced on 1 February 2011. The court held that prescription commenced running on 18 November 2008 and, as the summons was served on 26 June 2012, the claim had prescribed. The special plea of...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs; special plea of prescription upheld.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
  • The special plea of prescription succeeds.