South Africa Case Law

MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v N H obo A (513/2021)

MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v N H obo A (513/2021) [2022] ZASCA 181 (15 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

513/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Mocumie, Carelse, Chetty, Salie-Hlophe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription under s 12(3) of the Prescription Act does not begin to run until the claimant has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt. In cases of professional negligence, such as medical malpractice, a layperson without medical knowledge or access to hospital records cannot be expected to have sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts immediately after the incident. The respondent only acquired the necessary knowledge after consulting with her attorney, who explained the possible negligence of the hospital staff.…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Knowledge Of Facts
• Professional Negligence
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Emotional Shock Claim

Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another (969/2020)

Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another (969/2020) [2022] ZASCA 47 (8 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

969/2020

Judges

Mocumie, Schippers, Dlodlo, Carelse, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription begins to run when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, not when the creditor becomes aware of the legal consequences of those facts. The plaintiffs had the requisite knowledge on or about 26 September 2003, when they mandated the defendants to exercise the option and were told no signature was required, or at the latest by January 2005 when they appointed new attorneys. Their lack of knowledge of the provisions of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act was a legal conclusion,…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Mandate Breach
• Knowledge Of Facts
• Running Of Prescription

Kekana v Road Accident Fund (206/2017)

Kekana v Road Accident Fund (206/2017) [2018] ZASCA 75 (31 May 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

206/2017

Judges

Shongwe, Leach, Mbha, Pillay, Mothle

The SCA held that prescription had run because the claimant already knew the facts giving rise to his claim; later legal advice did not restart time.

• Prescription Act Section 12 3
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Knowledge Of Facts
• Settlement Offer
• Duty Of Care
• Prescription

Buitendach v South Vereeniging Properties (Edms) Bpk (12942/2007)

Buitendach v South Vereeniging Properties (Edms) Bpk (12942/2007) [2012] ZAGPPHC 78 (13 April 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12942/2007

Judge

B.R. du Plessis

The court held that the plaintiff was aware, at the time of making each payment, of the facts that rendered the contract void, namely that he contracted as agent for a trust that did not exist. His lack of awareness of the legal consequences of those facts (i.e., the contract's invalidity) is not relevant for the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. Accordingly, prescription began to run on the date of each payment. Since summons was served more than three years after the first two payments, the claims for repayment of R400,000 (paid on 3 June 2003) and R100,00…

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Condictio Indebiti
• Void Contract
• Knowledge Of Facts
• Special Plea

Mpato v Hlatswayo-Mhaise Incorporated (2010/28156)

Mpato v Hlatswayo-Mhaise Incorporated (2010/28156) [2011] ZAGPJHC 136 (14 October 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2010/28156

Judge

W L Wepener

The court held that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim against the defendant by 27 July 2004, when the defendant failed to issue and serve summons on the third party. Knowledge of negligence or legal certainty, whether through counsel's opinion or a subsequent court judgment, does not constitute a material fact for prescription purposes. The plaintiff's affidavit dated 1 July 2005 further confirmed his awareness of the relevant facts. As the summons was served on the defendant more than three years after the plaintiff obtained such knowledge,…

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Attorney Negligence
• Cause Of Action
• Knowledge Of Facts

Truter and Another v Deysel (043/05)

Truter and Another v Deysel (043/05) [2006] ZASCA 16; 2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA) (17 March 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

043/05

Judges

Harms, Zulman, Navsa, Mthiyane, Van Heerden

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that for prescription to begin running under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, the creditor need only have knowledge of the material facts from which the debt arises, not knowledge of legal conclusions or expert opinions. In this case, the respondent knew the details of the operations performed, the harm suffered, and the identity of the debtors as early as 1994 or 1995. The subsequent expert opinion confirming negligence was not a new fact but evidence supporting a legal conclusion. Therefore, prescription began to run well before the respondent obtained…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Medical Negligence
• Special Plea
• Knowledge Of Facts
• Cause Of Action