Shames No and Others v Body Corporate of Victoria and Edward Court (3920/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 633 (29 July 2016)

Shames No and Others v Body Corporate of Victoria and Edward Court (3920/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 633 (29 July 2016)

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim had become prescribed. The loan agreement provided that the defendant's obligation to repay capital and interest was triggered by the receipt of monthly levies, collected arrear levies, or termination of the agreement, whichever occurred first. The evidence showed that the defendant collected substantial levies during 2006 but failed to pay the full amounts to the fifth plaintiff, resulting in a shortfall that was due and payable at the relevant times. The last payment was made on 16 February 2008, and prescription commenced running from that date. The plaintiffs were always in a position to establish the facts relating to the finances of the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 633
Parties
Plaintiff: K.D. Shames NO; Plaintiff: G.M. Marc NO; Plaintiff: Ucosiselelo (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Lemasa Investments (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Waverley Centenary (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Body Corporate of Victoria and Edward Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Case Number
3920/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed as prescribed.
Judges
Rabie
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Loan Agreement, Security Cession, Sectional Titles Act, Interest Calculation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Loan Agreement Security Cession Sectional Titles Act Interest Calculation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.D. Shames NO

Plaintiff

G.M. Marc NO

Plaintiff

Ucosiselelo (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Lemasa Investments (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Waverley Centenary (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Body Corporate of Victoria and Edward Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant had become prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the loan agreement's repayment terms affected the running of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the amounts claimed were properly substantiated and calculated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim had become prescribed. The loan agreement provided that the defendant's obligation to repay capital and interest was triggered by the receipt of monthly levies, collected arrear levies, or termination of the agreement, whichever occurred first. The evidence showed that the defendant collected substantial levies during 2006 but failed to pay the full amounts to the fifth plaintiff, resulting in a shortfall that was due and payable at the relevant times. The last payment was made on 16 February 2008, and prescription commenced running from that date. The plaintiffs were always in a position to establish the facts relating to the finances of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed as prescribed.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.
  • The first and second plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendant's costs of suit jointly and severally.