South Africa Case Law

First Rand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v V and N Agencies CC and Another (39869/21)

First Rand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v V and N Agencies CC and Another (39869/21) [2025] ZAGPPHC 219 (10 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39869/21

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court dismissed a summary judgment application after finding that the defendants’ denial of signing an acknowledgment of liability raised a triable issue.

• Summary Judgment
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Burden Of Proof
• Contract Existence
• Summary-judgment
• Acknowledgment-of-liability

Madibeng Local Municipality v Public Investment Corporation Ltd (955/2019)

Madibeng Local Municipality v Public Investment Corporation Ltd (955/2019) [2020] ZASCA 157 (30 November 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

955/2019

Judges

Ponnan, Saldulker, Plasket, Ledwaba, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the PIC’s claims against Madibeng had not prescribed because liability was repeatedly acknowledged, and confirmed mora interest.

• Prescription Act
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Mora Interest
• Municipal Liability
• Prescription-act
• Acknowledgment-of-liability

Public Investment Corporation Soc Ltd v Madibeng Local Municipality (16611/2010)

Public Investment Corporation Soc Ltd v Madibeng Local Municipality (16611/2010) [2019] ZAGPPHC 213 (4 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16611/2010

Judge

Sardiwalla

The court found that prescription did not commence immediately after each amortization date but only after the redemption date of each zero coupon certificate, when the plaintiff had a complete cause of action. The defendant's various payments and unequivocal acknowledgments of liability, including correspondence and requests for balance certificates, constituted admissions that interrupted prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The court accepted the principle from KLD Residential v Empire Earth Investments that admissions made during without prejudice negotiations are admiss…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Zero Coupon Certificates
• Interruption Of Prescription

Mjokovana v Road Accident Fund (3118/2016)

Mjokovana v Road Accident Fund (3118/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 18 (28 March 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3118/2016

Judge

Dawood

The High Court dismissed the RAF’s special plea of prescription, holding that the claim was interrupted by the Fund’s acknowledgment of liability and payment.

• Prescription Act
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Special Plea
• Estoppel

KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (1135/2016)

KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd (1135/2016) [2017] ZASCA 98; [2017] 3 All SA 739 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 55 (SCA) (6 July 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1135/2016

Judges

Lewis, Tshiqi, Mbha, Fourie, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an acknowledgment of liability made in a without prejudice settlement communication cannot be admitted in evidence for the purpose of interrupting prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The court reasoned that the without prejudice rule is founded on public policy and contractual principles, encouraging parties to negotiate freely without fear that admissions will be used against them. Recognizing an exception for prescription would undermine the rule's effectiveness and create legal and practical uncertainty. The court found that the Pres…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 14
• Without Prejudice Rule
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Settlement Negotiations
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Bhagwandeen v Walter Sisulu University (1848/2013)

Bhagwandeen v Walter Sisulu University (1848/2013) [2016] ZAECGHC 125 (3 November 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1848/2013

Judge

Pickering

Clause 2.2.4 of the retrenchment agreement did not constitute an express or tacit acknowledgment of liability by the defendant in respect of the relevant claims. The clause was interpreted as a conditional undertaking to pay only such claims as the plaintiff might in future establish to be legitimate and legal, not as an admission of existing liability. Consequently, it did not interrupt the running of prescription under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. Furthermore, the clause did not amount to a renunciation of prescription, as it did not promise to pay claims that had already prescrib…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Contractual Undertaking
• Renunciation Of Prescription

Miracle Mile Investments 67 (Proprietary) Limited and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2013/22057)

Miracle Mile Investments 67 (Proprietary) Limited and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2013/22057) [2014] ZAGPJHC 423; 2016 (2) SA 153 (GJ) (11 December 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/22057

Judge

Gaibie

The court held that prescription of the principal debt commenced running from the date the debt became due, which was the decisive date of default by Nicolas. The Bank's contractual right to accelerate the debt and demand immediate payment did not delay prescription, as jurisprudence establishes that prescription runs from the date the creditor could have enforced payment, regardless of whether the creditor elected to do so. The suretyships and mortgage bonds were accessory to the principal debt, and the applicants did not undertake a separate independent liability. The prescriptive period ap…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Mortgage Bond Security
• Suretyship Liability
• Extinctive Prescription
• Accessory Debt
• Acknowledgment Of Liability

Loots and Another v Lubbe (71481/2011)

Loots and Another v Lubbe (71481/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1041 (20 November 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

71481/2011

Judge

J W Louw

The court held that a CM 100 filed in voluntary liquidation did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability to the creditor, so the suretyship claim had prescribed.

• Prescription
• Acknowledgment Of Liability
• Suretyship
• Cession Of Claims
• Acknowledgment-of-liability
• Cession

Anglorand Securities Ltd v Mudau and another (125/10)

Anglorand Securities Ltd v Mudau and another (125/10) [2011] ZASCA 76 (26 May 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

125/10

Judges

Heher, Ponnan, Maya, Meer, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s claim had prescribed and that no acknowledgment of liability interrupted prescription.

• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Commencement Of Prescription
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Special Plea
• Oral Agreement
• Acknowledgment Of Liability

Lombo v African National Congress (17/2001)

Lombo v African National Congress (17/2001) [2002] ZASCA 61; [2002] 3 All SA 517 (A); 2002 (5) SA 668 (SCA) (30 May 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

17/2001

Judges

Smalberger, Olivier, Streicher, Farlam, Navsa

The court held that the appellant's claims for assault, maltreatment, and deprivation of property were prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, as they arose more than three years before summons was served and no valid interruption of prescription was proved. The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia did not apply, as section 13(1) of the Act provided a statutory remedy, granting the appellant one year after release to institute action, which he failed to do. Regarding unlawful detention, the court found that each day of detention constituted a separate cause of action, and only…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Unlawful Detention
• Assault And Maltreatment
• Geneva Conventions
• Acknowledgment Of Liability