Van der Heever v Bierman (4955/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 22 (11 May 2022)

Van der Heever v Bierman (4955/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 22 (11 May 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the material facts necessary to institute action against the defendant by October 2013, when he was served with the liquidators' application and filed a counterclaim seeking validation of the sale. This knowledge was sufficient to trigger prescription on his alternative claim for the purchase price and related payments. The subsequent agreement in April 2019 with the liquidators created a new cause of action for the main claims, which had not prescribed by the time summons was served in August 2019. The court upheld the special plea of prescription on the alternative claim but dismissed it on the main claims, finding that the main claims...

Citation
[2022] ZALMPPHC 22
Parties
Plaintiff: Johannes Van der Heever; Defendant: Elmarie Hermie Bierman
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Case Number
4955/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as a Stated Case Before Trial on Merits.
Outcome
Special plea of prescription upheld on the alternative claim and dismissed on the main claims. Each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea, Sale of Immovable Property, Damages, Liquidation, Transfer of Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Prescription Act Special Plea Sale of Immovable Property Damages Liquidation Transfer of Property

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Van der Heever

Plaintiff

Elmarie Hermie Bierman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as a Stated Case Before Trial on Merits.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claims against the defendant have prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When did the plaintiff acquire knowledge of the material facts necessary to sustain his cause of action?
  3. 3 Does the agreement reached in April 2019 with the liquidators create a new cause of action not affected by prescription?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the material facts necessary to institute action against the defendant by October 2013, when he was served with the liquidators' application and filed a counterclaim seeking validation of the sale. This knowledge was sufficient to trigger prescription on his alternative claim for the purchase price and related payments. The subsequent agreement in April 2019 with the liquidators created a new cause of action for the main claims, which had not prescribed by the time summons was served in August 2019. The court upheld the special plea of prescription on the alternative claim but dismissed it on the main claims, finding that the main claims...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription upheld on the alternative claim and dismissed on the main claims. Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's plea of prescription is upheld on the alternative claim of R3 778 561.46 and dismissed on the main claims of the plaintiff.
  • Each party to pay his/her own costs.