Ruele v Matlhole (36553/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 246 (6 June 2014)

Ruele v Matlhole (36553/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 246 (6 June 2014)

The court found that the defendant's admission before the Health Professions Council of South Africa, in which he acknowledged practising outside the scope of his profession, satisfies the requirements of section 14 of the Prescription Act as an acknowledgement of liability. This admission interrupted the running of prescription, and the period commenced afresh from 27 July 2009. Therefore, the defendant's special plea of prescription is not a valid defence to the plaintiff's claim.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 246
Parties
Plaintiff: Collin Ruele; Defendant: Itumeleng Gareth Matlhole
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2014
Case Number
36553/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Raised and Determined
Outcome
The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed.
Judges
Mabasa
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Medical Negligence, Acknowledgement of Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Medical Negligence 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collin Ruele

Plaintiff

Itumeleng Gareth Matlhole

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Raised and Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for medical negligence has prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's admission before the Health Professions Council constitutes an acknowledgement of liability interrupting prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's admission before the Health Professions Council of South Africa, in which he acknowledged practising outside the scope of his profession, satisfies the requirements of section 14 of the Prescription Act as an acknowledgement of liability. This admission interrupted the running of prescription, and the period commenced afresh from 27 July 2009. Therefore, the defendant's special plea of prescription is not a valid defence to the plaintiff's claim.

Court Disposition

The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea is dismissed.
  • Costs to be costs in the cause.