Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee and Seuns and Another (CCT 117/22)
Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee and Seuns and Another (CCT 117/22) [2023] ZACC 46; 2024 (4) BCLR 522 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 1 (CC) (18 December 2023)
The Constitutional Court held that, in professional negligence claims against legal practitioners, the general rule that legal conclusions are not facts for prescription purposes must yield to a limited exception. Where a client cannot reasonably know of the breach of mandate or incorrect advice without a legal conclusion—such as a court ruling or expert opinion—prescription does not commence until that knowledge is acquired. In this case, the applicants only became aware of the breach during cross-examination in November 2007, when the invalidity of the option exercise was revealed as a lega…
Source excerpt
- Prescription Act Section 12 3
- Professional Negligence
- Breach Of Mandate
- Alienation Of Land Act
- Access To Court
- Legal Conclusion Exception