South Africa Case Law

City of Cape Town v Cell C Limited and Others (20689/2018)

City of Cape Town v Cell C Limited and Others (20689/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 246 (10 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20689/2018

Judge

Slingers

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the facts necessary to institute its claim against the first defendant on 18 November 2015, as its pleaded case was based on strict liability and did not depend on identifying the specific wrongdoer. The plaintiff could have acquired the requisite knowledge to institute proceedings against the second defendant by making reasonable inquiries at the time of the incident. The failure to make basic inquiries constituted a lack of reasonable care, and the plaintiff is deemed to have had constructive knowledge of the facts from the date…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Strict Liability
• Constructive Knowledge
• Vicarious Liability
• Contractual Claim
• Reasonable Care

Mason N O v Mason and Another (1286/2023)

Mason N O v Mason and Another (1286/2023) [2025] ZASCA 44 (14 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1286/2023

Judges

Zondi, Weiner, Keightley, Koen, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the executrix failed to prove constructive knowledge of misappropriation. The debt was not prescribed and the appeal failed.

• Prescription Act
• Constructive Knowledge
• Fiduciary Duty
• Close Corporation Act
• Misappropriation Of Funds
• Prescription

Zwane v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another

Zwane v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 214; 74773/2014 (13 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74773/2014

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts material to unlawfulness and fault regarding the Second Defendant (the bank) by 14 January 2010, as she was aware that funds were withdrawn from the deceased's account based on fraudulent instructions and that her signature did not match the bank's records. This was sufficient to plead wrongfulness and fault against the bank, and prescription began to run from that date. However, regarding the First Defendant (the Minister/Master’s office), the plaintiff did not have knowledge of the origin of the fraudulent…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12 3
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Aquilian Action
• Knowledge Of Debt
• Constructive Knowledge
• Delictual Liability

Grimbeek v Jakobo (922/2017)

Grimbeek v Jakobo (922/2017) [2018] ZASCA 131 (27 September 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

922/2017

Judges

Lewis, Tshiqi, Saldulker, Swain, Mothle

The SCA held that a client’s failure to follow up on an attorney’s RAF claim was not unreasonable on the facts, so prescription was not proven.

• Prescription Act
• Professional Negligence
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Onus Of Proof
• Constructive Knowledge
• Prescription

Mokau v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (A5066/15)

Mokau v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (A5066/15) [2017] ZAGPJHC 135 (9 May 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5066/15

Judges

FHD Van Oosten, CG Lamont, SE Weiner

High Court appeal on prescription: Eskom failed to prove a prima facie case that the plaintiff knew the debtor’s identity timeously, so the special plea was dismissed.

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Constructive Knowledge
• Burden Of Proof
• Bodily Injury Claim
• Prescription

Makhondo v Praga Technical (Pty) Ltd (41276/2015)

Makhondo v Praga Technical (Pty) Ltd (41276/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1218 (17 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

41276/2015

Judge

Barnes AJ

The court held that the defendant failed to discharge its onus of proving that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the identity of Praga as his debtor prior to October 2013. The plaintiff's belief that he only had a Workman's Compensation claim was reasonable in the circumstances, given his education, employment status, and the advice received from both his doctor and a superior at Praga. The defendant did not challenge the plaintiff's version in pleadings or cross-examination, nor did it plead or establish constructive knowledge. The court rejected the defendant's narrow in…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12 3
• Workmans Compensation
• Constructive Knowledge
• Onus Of Proof

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012)

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012) [2016] ZAFSHC 8 (7 January 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4623/2012

Judge

Rampai

Leave to appeal was refused in a prescription dispute, with the court finding no reasonable prospects of success and ordering costs against the applicant.

• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Leave To Appeal
• Constructive Knowledge
• Pleading Requirements
• Leave-to-appeal

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012)

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012) [2015] ZAFSHC 236 (11 November 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4623/2012

Judge

Rampai

The High Court upheld a special plea of prescription in a claim alleging failure to arrange full life cover for a deceased farmer’s debt.

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Constructive Knowledge
• Onus Of Proof
• Reasonable Care
• Contractual Breach

Mogwase v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (856/2008)

Mogwase v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (856/2008) [2014] ZAFSHC 112 (8 August 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

856/2008

Judge

M B Molemela

The High Court dismissed a prescription special plea in a damages claim, holding that the defendants had not proved when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the debt.

• Prescription Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Personal Injury
• Special Plea
• Constructive Knowledge
• Prescription

Macleod v Kweyiya (365/12)

Macleod v Kweyiya (365/12) [2013] ZASCA 28; 2013 (6) SA 1 (SCA) (27 March 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

365/12

Judges

Mthiyane, Tshiqi, Majiedt, Plasket, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent’s damages claim had not prescribed because she lacked constructive knowledge before April 2006.

• Prescription Act
• Constructive Knowledge
• Burden Of Proof
• Delictual Claim
• Negligence
• Prescription