Terblanche v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (76577/10) [2017] ZAGPPHC 427 (4 April 2017)

Terblanche v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (76577/10) [2017] ZAGPPHC 427 (4 April 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have reasonably known by 2004/2005 that he was not receiving water, could not irrigate his crops, and was suffering damages. He was aware of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to his claim. The absence of formal notice of suspension did not alter the fact that the plaintiff anticipated suspension due to non-payment of water charges, as required by the National Water Act. The cause of action was complete when harm was sustained, and prescription commenced at that point. The plaintiff's claim, instituted in December 2010, was therefore prescribed, as the three-year period had lapsed. The court dismissed the argument of a...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 427
Parties
Plaintiff: Petrus Wilhelm Terblanche; Defendant: Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2017
Case Number
76577/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription and Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsels.
Judges
M J Teffo
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Water Use Rights, National Water Act, Continuous Wrong, Damages, Administrative Action
Land and Property Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Water Use Rights National Water Act Continuous Wrong Damages +1 more

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

Parties

Petrus Wilhelm Terblanche

Plaintiff

Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from suspension of water supply has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the suspension of water supply constituted a continuous wrong extending the prescriptive period.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's officials acted unlawfully or negligently in suspending water supply without notice or opportunity to make representations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have reasonably known by 2004/2005 that he was not receiving water, could not irrigate his crops, and was suffering damages. He was aware of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to his claim. The absence of formal notice of suspension did not alter the fact that the plaintiff anticipated suspension due to non-payment of water charges, as required by the National Water Act. The cause of action was complete when harm was sustained, and prescription commenced at that point. The plaintiff's claim, instituted in December 2010, was therefore prescribed, as the three-year period had lapsed. The court dismissed the argument of a...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsels.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsels.