Thompson v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (5664/2011) [2018] ZAGPPHC 673 (10 September 2018)

Thompson v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (5664/2011) [2018] ZAGPPHC 673 (10 September 2018)

The court found that the Municipality failed to prove that the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable care, would have acquired knowledge of the Municipality's identity as debtor three years or more before the amended pages were delivered. The appropriate step for a would-be plaintiff is to make a written enquiry to the relevant organ of state, and the evidence showed that a reply could take at least a month and a half. There was no evidence that the plaintiff or his attorney made such enquiries, but the objective standard applies. The court concluded that, on the facts, the Municipality did not discharge its onus to prove prescription, and the special plea must fail.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 673
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Thompson; Defendant: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2018
Case Number
5664/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Raised and Adjudicated
Outcome
The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea of Prescription, Municipal Liability, Reasonable Care Standard
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Special Plea of Prescription Municipal Liability Reasonable Care Standard

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Thompson

Plaintiff

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Raised and Adjudicated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the Municipality is prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, could have acquired knowledge of the Municipality's identity as debtor.
  3. 3 Whether the delivery of amended pages interrupted prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Municipality failed to prove that the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable care, would have acquired knowledge of the Municipality's identity as debtor three years or more before the amended pages were delivered. The appropriate step for a would-be plaintiff is to make a written enquiry to the relevant organ of state, and the evidence showed that a reply could take at least a month and a half. There was no evidence that the plaintiff or his attorney made such enquiries, but the objective standard applies. The court concluded that, on the facts, the Municipality did not discharge its onus to prove prescription, and the special plea must fail.

Court Disposition

The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the special plea.