South Africa Case Law

Hassody Katha v Primathie Pillay N.O. and Others (276/2024)

Hassody Katha v Primathie Pillay N.O. and Others (276/2024) [2025] ZASCA 106 (18 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

276/2024

Judges

Matojane, Koen, Dlodlo, Dawood, Steyn

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'superior force' in section 3(1)(a) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 must be interpreted contextually and purposively, in line with constitutional principles protecting property rights. Death is an unforeseeable and uncontrollable event that objectively prevents the registered owner from acting to interrupt prescription. Therefore, death constitutes a 'superior force' under the Act, suspending the running of acquisitive prescription. The legislative purpose is to prevent arbitrary deprivation of property rights and to ensure an equitable bala…

Source excerpt

• Acquisitive Prescription
• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Superior Force
• Statutory Interpretation
• Property Rights
• Force Majeure

Befula Investment (Pty) Ltd t/a Rossi Engineering v Transnet Limited (AR333/23; D10584; D5234/2020)

Befula Investment (Pty) Ltd t/a Rossi Engineering v Transnet Limited (AR333/23; D10584; D5234/2020) [2025] ZAKZPHC 19 (24 January 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR333/23; D10584; D5234/2020

Judges

Mngadi, E Bezuidenhout, Nako

The court held that the arbitration process constitutes a single impediment to the running of prescription under section 13(1)(f) of the Prescription Act. Interim awards delivered during the arbitration do not terminate the arbitration process for the purposes of prescription. The penalty awards in favour of Transnet were not contingent on other claims, but the arbitration as a whole had not been finalised. Therefore, prescription remained suspended until the completion of the arbitration, and Transnet was not required to apply to make the interim awards orders of court within one year of the…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Interim Arbitration Award
• Enforcement Of Awards
• Prescription Of Debt

Shackleton Credit Management CC v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others

Shackleton Credit Management CC v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 200; 54103/2012 (17 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54103/2012

Judge

Mncube

The High Court held that a settlement agreement did not novate the debt, treated the debt as a judgment debt, granted default judgment, and dismissed rescission.

• Rule 41 4 Uniform Rules
• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Novation
• Settlement Agreement
• Suretyship
• Rescission Of Judgment

Investec Bank Ltd v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (2517/2011)

Investec Bank Ltd v Erf 436 Elandspoort (Pty) Ltd and Others (2517/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1103 (7 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2517/2011

Judge

H.J Fabricius

High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove an acknowledgement of liability interrupting prescription, so the special plea succeeded and the claim was dismissed with costs.

• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Loan Agreement
• Suretyship
• Prescription

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012)

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012) [2016] ZAFSHC 8 (7 January 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4623/2012

Judge

Rampai

Leave to appeal was refused in a prescription dispute, with the court finding no reasonable prospects of success and ordering costs against the applicant.

• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Leave To Appeal
• Constructive Knowledge
• Pleading Requirements
• Leave-to-appeal

Mtokonya v Minister of Police (1057/14)

Mtokonya v Minister of Police (1057/14) [2015] ZAECMHC 67 (23 September 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1057/14

Judge

Z. M. Nhlangulela

The court held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the material facts giving rise to the debt upon his release from detention in September 2010. The subsequent legal advice received in July 2013 constituted a legal conclusion based on facts already known to the plaintiff. Prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act does not require knowledge of a legal remedy, only the material facts and the identity of the debtor. The plaintiff's failure to act was negligent, not innocent, and prescription was not interrupted by his later acquisition of legal advic…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Knowledge Of Debt
• Legal Remedy Awareness

Anglorand Securities Ltd v Mudau and another (125/10)

Anglorand Securities Ltd v Mudau and another (125/10) [2011] ZASCA 76 (26 May 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

125/10

Judges

Heher, Ponnan, Maya, Meer, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s claim had prescribed and that no acknowledgment of liability interrupted prescription.

• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Commencement Of Prescription
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Special Plea
• Oral Agreement
• Acknowledgment Of Liability

ATB Chartered Accountants (SA) v Bonfiglio (648/09)

ATB Chartered Accountants (SA) v Bonfiglio (648/09) [2010] ZASCA 124; [2011] 2 All SA 132 (SCA) [2011] 2 All SA 132 (SCA) (30 September 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

648/09

Judges

Nugent, Cloete, R Pillay, Bertelsmann, Ebrahim

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription in respect of the respondent's claim commenced to run no later than 3 April 2003, when the respondent was informed that the purchaser was unable to pay and the company had been liquidated. At that point, the respondent had knowledge of all facts necessary to sustain her claim against ATB, and her right of action had accrued. The court rejected the respondent's argument that prescription only commenced upon the filing of the nulla bona return, finding that such an approach would unduly delay the running of prescription. As the summons was issu…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Contractual Damages
• Professional Negligence