South Africa Case Law

Seal A Deal CC t/a Makhafola Khaflins Transport and Another v Attorney Fidelity Fund Board and Another (30326/2018)

Seal A Deal CC t/a Makhafola Khaflins Transport and Another v Attorney Fidelity Fund Board and Another (30326/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 850 (27 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30326/2018

Judge

Erasmus

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was unduly prolix, repetitive, and lacked clarity. The applicants failed to establish reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for leave to appeal. The main issue argued was whether entrusted money to attorneys constitutes a debt under the Attorneys Act. The court aligned itself with previous judgments confirming that entrusted money is a debt and found no reason to deviate from this interpretation. The applicants did not provide substantive arguments to challenge this finding. The court also found no basis to interfere wit…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal Test
• Attorneys Act Section 26
• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Costs Order
• Entrusted Money As Debt

Anderson and Another v Standard Bank of SA Limited and Others (986/2019)

Anderson and Another v Standard Bank of SA Limited and Others (986/2019) [2024] ZAECQBHC 11 (13 February 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

986/2019

Judge

Bands

The court found that the applicants did not knowingly intend to transfer ownership of their property to the second respondent. The evidence showed they were misled by AMS and its agents into believing the documents were for securing a loan and safekeeping, not for sale. The respondents' denials were speculative and did not raise a genuine dispute of fact. The transfer was induced by fraud, rendering the sale and related agreements null and void. The court held that caveat subscriptor does not apply in cases of fraud, and the vindicatory claim for restitution is not subject to prescription und…

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent Transfer
• Rei Vindicatio
• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Caveat Subscriptor
• Estoppel
• Restitution

Minister of Police and Another v Miya (29972/2019)

Minister of Police and Another v Miya (29972/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 884 (11 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29972/2019

Judge

Mazibuko AJ

The High Court granted leave to appeal over whether service on the State Attorney only was sufficient, and whether the claim had prescribed.

• Service Of Process
• State Liability Act
• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Leave To Appeal
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Leave-to-appeal

van Rensburg and Others v Department of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (C724/2021)

van Rensburg and Others v Department of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (C724/2021) [2022] ZALCCT 22; (2022) 43 ILJ 2110 (LC) (20 May 2022)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C724/2021

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the defence of prescription was not available to the respondents because the certified arbitration award constituted a debt under the Prescription Act, and prescription was interrupted by both the referral to the Bargaining Council and the section 158(1)(c) application. The process under section 158(1)(c) qualifies as a 'process' under section 15(1) of the Prescription Act, thus interrupting prescription. The respondents' argument that the application was abandoned was not supported by the pleadings. Regarding standing, the court accepted the confirmatory affidavit author…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Contempt Of Court
• Certified Arbitration Award
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Mandamus
• Standing Of Applicants

Africa Wide Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Migan Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd (8279/2019)

Africa Wide Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Migan Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd (8279/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 496 (5 October 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8279/2019

Judge

A A Crutchfield

The High Court granted leave to amend a replication to address a prescription defence, holding that the amendment raised a triable issue and caused no prejudice.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Courts
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Prescription-act
• Right-of-access-to-courts

Hennop v Koen (12310/2014)

Hennop v Koen (12310/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 270 (25 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12310/2014

Judge

Maumela

The High Court granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit and counter-application, transferred the matter to Limpopo, postponed it sine die, and awarded costs.

• Transfer Of Proceedings
• Supplementary Affidavit
• Counter Application
• Postponement
• Specific Performance
• Prescription Act Interpretation

Off-Beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Limited and Others (CCT106/16)

Off-Beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Limited and Others (CCT106/16) [2017] ZACC 15; 2017 (7) BCLR 916 (CC); 2017 (5) SA 9 (CC) (23 May 2017)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 106/16

Judges

Nkabinde ACJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mbha AJ, Mhlantla J, Musi AJ, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court held that claims brought under section 252 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 for equitable relief do not constitute 'debts' as defined by the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The Court reasoned that the relief sought is not for payment of money, delivery of goods, or rendering of services, but rather for a judicial determination of fairness in company governance. The wide discretion conferred by section 252 allows the court to consider delay and other factors when granting relief, but does not render the claim susceptible to extinctive prescription. The Court found that the…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act Section 252
• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Minority Shareholder Remedies
• Declaratory Relief
• Access To Courts
• Equitable Remedies

Links v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Northern Cape Province (CCT 29/15)

Links v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Northern Cape Province (CCT 29/15) [2016] ZACC 10; 2016 (5) BCLR 656 (CC); 2016 (4) SA 414 (CC) (30 March 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 29/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act does not commence until the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, including causation and fault. The applicant, although aware of his injury, did not know the cause or have reasonable grounds to suspect negligence by the hospital staff before his discharge and subsequent legal consultation. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicant had the requisite knowledge before 5 August 2006. The Court found that the applicant…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Section 12 3 Prescription
• Medical Negligence
• Condonation
• Right Of Access To Court
• Aquilian Action

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Factaprops 1052 CC and Another (64702/2010)

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Factaprops 1052 CC and Another (64702/2010) [2015] ZAGPPHC 744; 2016 (2) SA 477 (GP) (10 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64702/2010

Judge

Msimeki

The court held that a special notarial bond registered in terms of the Security by Means of Movable Property Act creates a real right of security equivalent to a mortgage bond. The legislature, through amendments to the Insolvency Act and the Security Act, intended to include special notarial bonds within the meaning of 'mortgage bond' for the purposes of section 11(a)(i) of the Prescription Act. Therefore, the applicable prescription period for a debt secured by a special notarial bond is 30 years, not three years. The plaintiff's claim had not prescribed, as service of summons interrupted t…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Special Notarial Bond
• Mortgage Bond Definition
• Debt Collection
• Suretyship Liability
• Real Rights Of Security

Venter & Volschenk Attorneys and Another v Ekman (44655/2013)

Venter & Volschenk Attorneys and Another v Ekman (44655/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 622 (4 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44655/2013

Judge

C Pretorius

The High Court granted leave to appeal, holding that another court might reach a different conclusion on the interpretation of section 12(2) and 12(3) of the Prescription Act.

• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs In The Appeal
• Leave-to-appeal
• Prescription-act
• Civil-procedure