Takalani v Booyens Du Preez & Boshoff Inc. (30762/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 78 (29 May 2009)

Takalani v Booyens Du Preez & Boshoff Inc. (30762/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 78 (29 May 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff accepted the second offer from the Road Accident Fund on 26 August 2003, as evidenced by the signed document. The discharge form signed on 6 November 2003 was considered an administrative step and did not affect the inception of prescription. The plaintiff had actual or deemed knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt at least by June 2003, when he was advised of the offer and his options. The plaintiff did not testify to provide an alternative version or to establish a later date of knowledge. The defendant discharged the onus of proving that prescription commenced before 13 October 2003. Accordingly, the special plea of prescription was upheld and...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Nenzhelele Joseph Takalani; Defendant: Booyens Du Preez & Boshoff Incorporated
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
30762/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea on Prescription
Outcome
Special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Professional Negligence, Breach of Agreement, Extinctive Prescription
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Professional Negligence Breach of Agreement Extinctive 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nenzhelele Joseph Takalani

Plaintiff

Booyens Du Preez & Boshoff Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is extinguished by prescription.
  2. 2 When did prescription begin to run in respect of the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant.
  3. 3 Did the plaintiff have actual or deemed knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt before 13 October 2003.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff accepted the second offer from the Road Accident Fund on 26 August 2003, as evidenced by the signed document. The discharge form signed on 6 November 2003 was considered an administrative step and did not affect the inception of prescription. The plaintiff had actual or deemed knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt at least by June 2003, when he was advised of the offer and his options. The plaintiff did not testify to provide an alternative version or to establish a later date of knowledge. The defendant discharged the onus of proving that prescription commenced before 13 October 2003. Accordingly, the special plea of prescription was upheld and...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription upheld; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is upheld.
  • Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs, including the costs of 19 May 2005.