South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Stuttafords Van Lines Gauteng Hub (Pty) (Ltd) and Others (181/CAC/Jan20)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Stuttafords Van Lines Gauteng Hub (Pty) (Ltd) and Others (181/CAC/Jan20) [2020] ZACAC 6; [2020] 2 CPLR 548 (CAC) (22 October 2020)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

181/CAC/Jan20

Judges

F Kathree-Setiloane, DM Davis, B Mnguni

The court held that the evidence did not show a binding price-fixing agreement among furniture removers about e-toll recovery, so the cross-appeal succeeded.

• Horizontal Agreements
• Price Fixing
• Cartel Conduct
• Limitation Of Actions
• Competition Act Section 4
• Administrative Penalty

Mbodla v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape (2701/11)

Mbodla v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape (2701/11) [2012] ZAECMHC 17 (13 December 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2701/11

Judge

Griffiths

The court found that the plaintiff only acquired the requisite knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt when he consulted his attorney and received the medico-legal report in April or August 2011. The clinical notes and hospital records were inadequate and did not inform the plaintiff, a layman, of any sub-optimal treatment or negligence. The court distinguished this matter from Truter v Deyzel, noting that in Truter the plaintiff was aware of possible negligence from the outset, whereas in the present case, the plaintiff had no reason to suspect negligence until advised by his attorney…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Actions
• Notice To Organs Of State
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Breach Of Contract
• Medical Negligence

Dominy v Emnambithi-Ladysmith Municipality (2246/2002)

Dominy v Emnambithi-Ladysmith Municipality (2246/2002) [2006] ZAKZHC 13; 2008 (5) SA 426 (N) (24 November 2006)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

2246/2002

Judge

Ntshangase

High Court held that a delictual claim against a municipality had prescribed because the plaintiff could, with reasonable care, have identified the debtor in time.

• Prescription
• Limitation Of Actions
• Reasonable Care In Acquiring Knowledge
• Local Authority Liability
• Limitation-of-actions
• Delict

Potgieter v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Gesondheid Provinsiale Regering Gauteng en andere (CCT 26/01)

Potgieter v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Gesondheid Provinsiale Regering Gauteng en andere (CCT 26/01) [2001] ZACC 4; 2001 (11) BCLR 1175 (8 October 2001)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 26/01

Judges

Skweyiya AJ, Chaskalson P, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, DuPlessis AJ

Section 68(4) of the Mental Health Act 18 of 1973 imposes a three-month limitation period for instituting legal proceedings against persons acting under the Act. This limitation is neither adequate nor fair, especially considering the vulnerable category of persons affected. It constitutes a material and unjustifiable restriction of the right of access to courts guaranteed by section 34 of the Constitution. No justification was provided for the limitation, and in light of Constitutional Court precedents, such a drastic restriction cannot be sustained. The High Court's declaration of invalidit…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Access To Court
• Limitation Of Actions
• Retrospective Invalidity
• Mental Health Act
• Access To Information

De Klerk and Another v Die Groter Kroonstad Plaaslike Oorgangsraad (Uitspraak) (433/98)

De Klerk and Another v Die Groter Kroonstad Plaaslike Oorgangsraad (Uitspraak) (433/98) [2000] ZASCA 197 (12 September 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

433/98

Judges

Howie, Marais, Zulman, Melunsky, Mpati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ claim against the local authority had prescribed because they could have discovered the relevant facts earlier with reasonable care.

• Prescription Of Claims Against Local Authorities
• Limitation Of Actions
• Municipal Liability
• Latent Defects
• Reasonable Care Standard
• Prescription

Masuku and Another v Mdlalose and Others (436/95)

Masuku and Another v Mdlalose and Others (436/95) [1997] ZASCA 46; 1998 (1) SA 1 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 339 (A); (23 May 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

436/95

Judges

Smalberger JA, Nienaber JA, Olivier JA, Scott JA, Streicher AJA

The majority held that the concepts 'in the course and scope of employment' and 'in pursuance of the Act' are not identical. The particulars of claim were, at best, equivocal as to whether the conduct complained of was in pursuance of the Police Act. The defendants, who bore the onus in the special plea, failed to prove that the first defendant's conduct was in pursuance of the Act, and therefore, the notice requirement under section 32(1) did not automatically apply. The special plea was correctly dismissed, and the appeal failed. The minority (Olivier JA) disagreed, holding that the concept…

Source excerpt

• State Liability
• Vicarious Liability
• Limitation Of Actions
• Notice Requirements
• Police Act
• Special Plea

Abrahamse v Municipality of East London and Another, Municipality of East London and Another v Abrahamse (483/95, 513/95)

Abrahamse v Municipality of East London and Another, Municipality of East London and Another v Abrahamse (483/95, 513/95) [1997] ZASCA 38; [1997] 2 All SA 651 (A) (12 May 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

483/95, 513/95

Judges

Mahomed, Grosskopf, Harms, Marais, Streicher

The court interpreted statutory notice requirements for municipal debt claims and held that the plaintiff had complied in respect of both municipalities.

• Limitation Of Actions
• Statutory Notice Requirements
• Municipal Liability
• Reasonable Care Standard
• Statutory-notice
• Municipal-liability

Mohlomi v Minister of Defence (CCT41/95)

Mohlomi v Minister of Defence (CCT41/95) [1996] ZACC 20; 1996 (12) BCLR 1559; 1997 (1) SA 124 (26 September 1996)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT41/95

Judges

Didcott, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Kentridge, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs

Section 113(1) of the Defence Act imposes rigid requirements for notice and institution of action against the state, allowing only six months from the cause of action and requiring written notice at least one month before commencement. The court found that these requirements, in the context of South Africa's social realities—poverty, illiteracy, and lack of access to legal advice—operate harshly and deny many claimants a real and fair opportunity to seek judicial redress. The inability to condone non-compliance, regardless of fault or prejudice, further exacerbates the infringement. The court…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Actions
• Access To Courts
• Notice Requirements
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Prescription
• Condonation

Minister of Safety & Security v Molutsi and Another (366/95)

Minister of Safety & Security v Molutsi and Another (366/95) [1996] ZASCA 75; 1996 (4) SA 72 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 535 (A); (3 June 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

366/95

Judges

Corbett CJ, Van Heerden JA, F H Grosskopf JA, Harms JA, Marais JA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amendments to the particulars of claim introduced a new cause of action, distinct from the original claim. This new cause of action arose on 7 August 1993 and was subject to section 32 of the Police Act, which required written notice and institution of proceedings within six months. The respondent failed to comply with these requirements, and by the time the Proclamation was promulgated, the claim was already time-barred. The transitional provisions of the Proclamation did not retroactively revive claims that had already been extinguished, as this wou…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Actions
• Vicarious Liability
• Retrospective Application
• Interim Constitution
• Notice Requirements
• Statutory Interpretation