South Africa Case Law

Ademulegun v Monothendre (Pty) Ltd t/a GFT Group Fiveways Superspar (JS58/2020)

Ademulegun v Monothendre (Pty) Ltd t/a GFT Group Fiveways Superspar (JS58/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 123 (11 March 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS58/2020

Judge

R Daniels

The court held that contractual claims for unpaid remuneration under the BCEA are debts subject to the Prescription Act, with a three-year prescription period. Each monthly underpayment constitutes a separate debt, and prescription runs from the end of each month when payment was due. The applicant's referral to the CCMA on 28 August 2019 interrupted prescription for claims not already prescribed at that date. Claims relating to the period from January 2011 to 28 August 2016 have prescribed, while claims after 28 August 2016 have not. The court found no basis to order costs, as neither party…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Of Remuneration Claims
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription
• Employment Contract Breach

Rademeyer v Ferreira (343/2021)

Rademeyer v Ferreira (343/2021) [2022] ZASCA 92 (17 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

343/2021

Judges

Matojane, Makgoka, Plasket, Gorven, Smith

The Court held that the service of the notice of motion in the 2012 application for a declaratory order, alternatively damages, constituted a step in the enforcement of the claim for payment of a debt and interrupted the running of prescription in relation to the damages claim. The damages claim was based on the same facts and right as the claim for specific performance, and the right to claim damages formed part of the order granted by Pickering J. The respondent could not have succeeded in the damages claim without first establishing the appellant's liability for damages, which was establis…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Contract Cancellation
• Damages Claim
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription

Ferreira v Rademeyer (1256/15)

Ferreira v Rademeyer (1256/15) [2021] ZAECPEHC 13 (23 February 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1256/15

Judge

Govindjee

The court held that the service of the original application for specific performance, cancellation, and damages interrupted prescription for the damages claim in terms of section 15(1) of the Prescription Act. The subsequent damages action is based on the same cause of action as the original proceedings, and the judicial interruption of prescription has not lapsed under section 15(2), even though two processes were required to bring the matter to conclusion. The court found that the defendant's argument that the damages claim prescribed three years after the order was inconsistent with the pu…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription
• Specific Performance
• Damages For Breach Of Contract
• Declaratory Relief
• Enforcement Of Judgments

Cem Brick Manufactures CC v HOD: Department of Human Settlements Free State Province and Another (3362/2013)

Cem Brick Manufactures CC v HOD: Department of Human Settlements Free State Province and Another (3362/2013) [2018] ZAFSHC 48 (3 May 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3362/2013

Judge

Mhlambi

The court held that the service of the original summons on the HOD, acting as representative of the Department of Human Settlements, was effective in interrupting prescription. The amendment substituting the HOD with the MEC did not introduce a new entity as defendant but merely rectified an incorrect citation. The department was always the true debtor, and it was aware of the claim from the outset. The court agreed with Jordaan J's reasoning that the amendments did not prejudice the defendants and that prescription was interrupted by service of the original summons. The special plea of presc…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• State Liability Act
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription
• Amendment Of Pleadings

Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd v Lethiba (43918/2013)

Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd v Lethiba (43918/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 901 (22 September 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43918/2013

Judge

M W Msimeki

The court held that the plaintiff’s claim prescribed because no determined debt existed against the deregistered close corporation when liability was said to pass to the member.

• Prescription Act
• Close Corporation Liability
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription
• Deregistration Of Corporation
• Prescription
• Close-corporation-liability

First Rand Bank Limited v Austin and Another (55320/2011)

First Rand Bank Limited v Austin and Another (55320/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 419 (29 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55320/2011

Judge

Khumalo

The court found that the debt in question is the principal debt secured by a mortgage bond, not an accessory or suretyship obligation. Section 11(a)(i) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 prescribes a thirty-year period for debts secured by a mortgage bond. The invocation of the acceleration clause and the issuing of summons in 2007 did not alter the nature of the debt or reduce the prescription period to three years. The authorities cited by the defendants, including Kilroe-Daley and Jans, were distinguished as they dealt with suretyship and accessory debts, which are not applicable to the pr…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Mortgage Bond Debt
• Acceleration Clause
• Judicial Interruption Of Prescription