South Africa Case Law

Mabaza v Road Accident Fund (29534/2012)

Mabaza v Road Accident Fund (29534/2012) [2025] ZAGPJHC 519 (30 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

29534/2012

Judge

Windell

The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not prescribed because the final day for lodging the claim, 14 August 2011, fell on a Sunday. Applying the principles established in Road Accident Fund v Masindi and Gabuza v Road Accident Fund, the court found that prescription is extended to the next working day when the last day falls on a dies non. This interpretation aligns with constitutional imperatives and the protective purpose of the Road Accident Fund Act. The defendant's special plea of prescription was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, including counsel's qualifying…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Dies Non
• Statutory Claims

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2015/2022)

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2015/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 3 (6 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2015/2022

Judge

Van Rhyn

The court found that the plaintiffs never acquired a prospecting right, as their application was declined due to failure to obtain the landowner's consent. The claim for damages is a personal right, not a real right, and thus constitutes a 'debt' under the Prescription Act. The plaintiffs' cause of action arose at the latest by September 2013, when they knew or ought to have known of the refusal. As summons was only issued in May 2022, the claim for damages prescribed by September 2016. The plaintiffs did not act diligently and failed to exhaust internal remedies. The special plea of prescrip…

Source excerpt

• Prospecting Rights
• Extinctive Prescription
• Mandamus
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Access To Court
• Real Vs Personal Rights

Moodliyar and Bedhesi Attorneys v Y.M and Another (A2024/016195)

Moodliyar and Bedhesi Attorneys v Y.M and Another (A2024/016195) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1288 (13 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024/016195

Judges

Mudau, Dippenaar, Farber

The court held that the amendment to the particulars of claim, which cited the respondents in their representative capacities as guardians of the minor child, amounted to the introduction of new parties to the proceedings. The original summons cited the respondents only in their personal capacities, and individuals in personal and representative capacities are legally distinct. The process did not communicate an intention to claim against the respondents in their representative capacities, and thus section 15(1) of the Prescription Act did not interrupt prescription for those capacities. The…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Representative Capacity
• Uniform Rule 28

Strydom v Sol Plaate Municipality (825/2019)

Strydom v Sol Plaate Municipality (825/2019) [2024] ZANCHC 121 (8 November 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

825/2019

Judge

MC Mamosebo

The High Court granted leave to amend particulars of claim, holding that correcting the street intersection did not create a new cause of action or trigger prescription.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Extinctive Prescription
• Negligence
• Costs Award
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Extinctive-prescription

Rensburg and Another v Cilliers (1705/2021)

Rensburg and Another v Cilliers (1705/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 290 (20 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1705/2021

Judge

JP Daffue

The court held that the exception must be dismissed. The facts pleaded in the special plea must be accepted as true for purposes of the exception. The plaintiffs' debt became due when the child was conceived or when patrimonial loss was first incurred, not only at birth. The authorities support the view that the cause of action is complete as soon as some damage is suffered, and all damages, whether already sustained or prospective, must be claimed in one action. The plaintiffs were aware of the relevant facts by 30 January 2018 and should have instituted action within three years from that d…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Patrimonial Loss
• Wrongful Pregnancy
• Once And For All Rule
• Exception Procedure

Maboyane v Basson (20780/2021)

Maboyane v Basson (20780/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 625 (20 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20780/2021

Judge

N Davis

High Court upheld a special plea of extinctive prescription in a malpractice claim by a former client against his attorney over a lapsed RAF claim.

• Extinctive Prescription
• Professional Negligence
• Road Accident Fund
• Attorney Misconduct
• Extinctive-prescription
• Professional-negligence

Khoza and Another v Minister of Police and Another (3507/18)

Khoza and Another v Minister of Police and Another (3507/18) [2024] ZAGPPHC 628 (12 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3507/18

Judge

Mabuse

The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution arose on 23 November 2012, the uncontested date of arrest. In terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, such claims prescribe after three years. The summons was only served on the first defendant on 30 January 2018, well beyond the prescription period. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the prior condonation order under section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act rendered the prescription issue res judicata, relying on binding pr…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Unlawful Arrest
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unfair Dismissal
• Res Judicata
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State

Tsie v Brenner and Others (4783-2020)

Tsie v Brenner and Others (4783-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 257 (18 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

4783/2020

Judge

C Bester

The court held that the applicant's claim for transfer of the membership interest in Crest Car Hire CC was a claim for specific performance of a contractual obligation and thus constituted a 'debt' under the Prescription Act. The debt became due on 1 August 2012, the effective date of the sale agreement, and prescription commenced from that date. The applicant failed to interrupt prescription against Crest Car Hire CC within the three-year period, and service on the executors did not suffice due to the separate juristic personality of the corporation. The applicant's reliance on section 12(2)…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Specific Performance
• Close Corporation Membership
• Sale Of Business Agreement

Bisschoff N O obo Denzil John Reyners v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (727/2022)

Bisschoff N O obo Denzil John Reyners v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (727/2022) [2023] ZASCA 160 (28 November 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

727/2022

Judges

Mbatha, Mabindla-Boqwana, Matojane, Nhlangulela, Kathree-Setiloane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription had not run against a claimant under a disability and began only when a curator ad litem was appointed.

• Prescription Act
• Extinctive Prescription
• Curatorship
• Mental Capacity
• Special Plea
• Interruption Of Prescription

Long Beach Owners Association v Miles N.O - Trial (624/2020)

Long Beach Owners Association v Miles N.O - Trial (624/2020) [2023] ZAECMKHC 71 (30 May 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

624/2020

Judge

Lowe

The High Court upheld a special plea of prescription in a homeowners’ association dispute over legal-cost recovery, finding the claim had prescribed.

• Extinctive Prescription
• Home Owners Association Liability
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Juristic Person Status
• Extinctive-prescription
• Home-owners-association-liability