Trollip v Phatshoane Henney Attorneys (3683/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 158 (23 June 2022)

Trollip v Phatshoane Henney Attorneys (3683/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 158 (23 June 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff, a lay person, was not informed by the second defendant that the limitation of her claim was due to his negligence. The second defendant created the impression that the limitation was caused by circumstances beyond his control and failed to disclose his omissions. The plaintiff only became aware of the relevant facts and the identity of the debtor after consulting new attorneys on 19 July 2016. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge before this date. The court held that the second defendant wilfully prevented the plaintiff from acquiring knowledge of the debt, and thus prescription did not commence until she became...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 158
Parties
Plaintiff: Juanita Trollip; Defendant: Phatshoane Henney Attorneys; Defendant: Pieter Labuschagne Skein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Case Number
3683/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Prescription and Liability
Outcome
The special pleas of prescription are dismissed. The defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff.
Judges
Loubser
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Professional Negligence, Attorney Client Duties, Wilful Concealment, Quantification of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Professional Negligence Attorney Client Duties Wilful Concealment Quantification of Damages

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

Parties

Juanita Trollip

Plaintiff

Phatshoane Henney Attorneys

Defendant

Pieter Labuschagne Skein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Prescription and Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendants has become prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants, particularly the second defendant, wilfully prevented the plaintiff from acquiring knowledge of the debt.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim before 19 July 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, a lay person, was not informed by the second defendant that the limitation of her claim was due to his negligence. The second defendant created the impression that the limitation was caused by circumstances beyond his control and failed to disclose his omissions. The plaintiff only became aware of the relevant facts and the identity of the debtor after consulting new attorneys on 19 July 2016. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge before this date. The court held that the second defendant wilfully prevented the plaintiff from acquiring knowledge of the debt, and thus prescription did not commence until she became...

Court Disposition

The special pleas of prescription are dismissed. The defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The special pleas of prescription entered by the first and second defendants are dismissed.
  • First and second defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of R 2,261,204.00 plus interest a tempore morae.