South Africa Case Law

Ellis Structural and Civil Engineers CC v Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd (23229/2018)

Ellis Structural and Civil Engineers CC v Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd (23229/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 671 (8 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23229/2018

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that the debts under the written and oral agreements became due monthly as the plaintiff was entitled to issue invoices for services rendered. The power to issue invoices lay solely with the plaintiff, and its failure to do so could not delay the running of prescription. The last possible date for the debts to become due was July 2014, and prescription commenced running from August 2014. Summons was issued in April 2018, after the three-year prescription period had expired for all claims. The court found that the alleged interruptions of prescription in June 2015 and May 2016 d…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Contractual Debt
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Interpretation Of Contracts

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Mojelo Hlazo Attorneys Incorporated and Another (2023/117389)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Mojelo Hlazo Attorneys Incorporated and Another (2023/117389) [2024] ZAGPJHC 700 (22 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/117389

Judge

Marcus

The High Court dismissed the City of Johannesburg’s leave-to-appeal application, finding no reasonable prospects of overturning factual findings on prescription interruption.

• Prescription Interruption
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Partial Payment
• Motion Proceedings
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Leave-to-appeal

Phuma Finance (Pty) Ltd v Nel (5473/2023)

Phuma Finance (Pty) Ltd v Nel (5473/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 197 (27 June 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5473/2023

Judge

Reinders

The High Court granted provisional sequestration after rejecting a prescription defence and finding a prima facie case under the Insolvency Act.

• Sequestration
• Suretyship
• Prescription
• Liquidation And Distribution Account
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Insolvency-act

Investec Bank Limited v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (410/2019)

Investec Bank Limited v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (410/2019) [2020] ZASCA 104; 2021 (1) SA 28 (SCA) (16 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

410/2019

Judges

Petse, Saldulker, Dambuza, Plasket, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the payments made by Erf 436, both directly and through arrangements with Investec, as well as the correspondence from its director, constituted a series of express and tacit acknowledgements of liability. These acknowledgements interrupted prescription each time they occurred, as contemplated by section 14 of the Prescription Act. The court found that the context of the agreements and the conduct of Erf 436, including its acceptance of payments made by related entities and its ongoing involvement in the management and sale of the property, demonstrated a…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Suretyship Liability
• Loan Agreement
• Notarial Mortgage Bond

Mguzula v Road Accident Fund (RAF 372/2018)

Mguzula v Road Accident Fund (RAF 372/2018) [2020] ZANWHC 35 (29 June 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

RAF 372/2018

Judge

M M Leeuw

The High Court upheld a special plea of prescription, finding that without-prejudice settlement correspondence did not acknowledge liability and interrupt prescription.

• Prescription
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Road-accident-fund
• Acknowledgement-of-liability

Investec Bank Limited v Erf 439 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (2517/2011)

Investec Bank Limited v Erf 439 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (2517/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 77 (7 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2517/2011

Judge

H J Fabricius

The High Court held that Investec failed to prove an acknowledgement of liability interrupting prescription, so the special plea succeeded and the claim was dismissed.

• Prescription Act
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Loan Agreement
• Suretyship
• Prescription

Investec Bank Ltd v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (2517/2011)

Investec Bank Ltd v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (2517/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1103 (7 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2517/2011

Judge

H.J Fabricius

High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove an acknowledgement of liability interrupting prescription, so the special plea succeeded and the claim was dismissed with costs.

• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Loan Agreement
• Suretyship
• Prescription

Boshoff Visser Paarl (Pty) Ltd Limited v Oudewoning Boerdery (Pty) Limited

Boshoff Visser Paarl (Pty) Ltd Limited v Oudewoning Boerdery (Pty) Limited [2019] ZAECGHC 21 (5 March 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4373/2017

Judge

Poswa-Lerotholi

Provisional liquidation application dismissed after the court found most of the debt had prescribed and that winding-up proceedings did not interrupt prescription.

• Provisional Liquidation
• Prescription Act
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Company Debt
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Provisional-liquidation

Fisher v Snyman (15/11387)

Fisher v Snyman (15/11387) [2017] ZAGPJHC 452 (22 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15/11387

Judge

Grenfell

The court found that the oral loan agreement required the defendant to repay the loan in monthly instalments commencing shortly after May 2000. Each instalment constituted a separate debt, and prescription began to run for each instalment when it became due. The plaintiff failed to prove any valid interruption of prescription, as the only payment established occurred in March 2012, well after the debt had prescribed. Verbal acknowledgements of liability by the defendant in 2014 or 2015 were irrelevant, as prescription had already extinguished the debt. The plaintiff's attempt to rely on secti…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Loan Agreement
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Acknowledgement Of Liability

Fisher v Snyman (15/11387)

Fisher v Snyman (15/11387) [2017] ZAGPJHC 273 (22 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15/11387

Judge

Grenfell

The court found that the loan agreement between the parties created a debt payable in monthly instalments, each of which constituted a separate debt for the purposes of prescription. Prescription commenced to run in respect of each instalment when it became due, with a three-year prescriptive period applying to each. The plaintiff failed to prove any valid interruption of prescription, as the only payment established occurred after the debt had already prescribed, and verbal acknowledgements were either not proved or occurred after prescription. The plaintiff's attempt to rely on statutory im…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Loan Agreement
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Acknowledgement Of Liability