South Africa Case Law

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024) [2025] ZASCA 65 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

041/2024

Judges

Mocumie, Kgoele, Baartman, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription began to run when Wamjay acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute its claim, which occurred on 5 October 2012 when UJ communicated its repudiation and cancellation of the lease and cession agreement. The court rejected Wamjay's argument that prescription only commenced upon the Constitutional Court's judgment, finding that legal certainty or a legal conclusion is not required for prescription to begin. The exception for professional negligence claims against legal practitioners, as articulated in Le Roux, does not apply…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Professional Negligence Exception

Bester N.O and Others v Vosloo (1497/2024)

Bester N.O and Others v Vosloo (1497/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 72 (6 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1497/2024

Judge

Mullins

The High Court granted summary judgment to liquidators recovering unlawful scheme payouts, rejecting prescription, locus standi, and procedural objections.

• Summary Judgment
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Liquidation
• Unlawful Pyramid Scheme
• Summary-judgment

Plaatjies v Melomed Private Hospitals t/a Gatesville Private Hospital and Another (6267/2019)

Plaatjies v Melomed Private Hospitals t/a Gatesville Private Hospital and Another (6267/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 313 (23 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6267/2019

Judge

Mangcu-Lockwood

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of all material facts and the identity of Dr Ddamulira by 20 June 2017, when he consulted him for a hernia related to the original treatment. The events giving rise to the cause of action occurred during the plaintiff's hospitalization in August and September 2016, and subsequent complications were consequences, not new material facts. The plaintiff's assumption regarding Dr Ddamulira's employment status did not affect the running of prescription, as knowledge of a right to sue is not required under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. The co…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Medical Negligence
• Joinder Of Parties
• Vicarious Liability

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/9895)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/9895) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1359 (23 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/9895

Judge

Friedman

The court found that the applicant, Auckland Park Theological Seminary, has reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the prescription defence under section 12(1) of the Prescription Act. The judge acknowledged the complexity and novelty of the issues, including when the debt became due and the implications of the Constitutional Court's decision on the cession agreement. The court also addressed the applicant's criticism for raising the warranty against eviction issue without it being argued, concluding that while it is desirable to call for supplementary submissions, the failure to…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Leave To Appeal
• Contract Of Cession
• Warranty Against Eviction

Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017)

Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 32 (8 May 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA78/2017

Judges

J W Eksteen, B R Tokota, T P Mageza

The court held that the appellant's claim arose from the wrongful disbursement of his funds by the respondent's employee on 28 October 2010, which constituted the harm. The appellant had actual knowledge of the wrongful payment and its consequences by the end of 2010, as evidenced by discussions with Ms Amsterdam and his subsequent actions to secure transfer. Even if the appellant only became aware of the impossibility of transfer in May 2012, prescription commenced to run at the latest on 18 May 2012. The court distinguished this case from Kelbrick v Nelson Attorneys, noting that the harm he…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Running Of Prescription
• Attorney Duty Of Care
• Wrongful Disbursement
• Delictual Claim
• Knowledge Of Debt

De Vos v Adams and Others (3133/2015)

De Vos v Adams and Others (3133/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 202 (6 December 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3133/2015

Judge

Davis

The court found that the applicant and her late husband were the rightful owners of the property, as the transfer to Adams was fraudulent and not effected with their consent. However, the applicant did not meet all the requirements for the rei vindicatio, particularly as she remained in possession of the property. The court held that prescription did not run until 2014, when the applicant became fully aware of the fraud, given her reasonable conduct and lack of legal sophistication. The sale in execution and subsequent transfers were set aside, the property was restored to the applicant and h…

Source excerpt

• Rei Vindicatio
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Fraudulent Transfer Of Property
• Sale In Execution
• Bona Fide Purchaser
• Mortgage Bond Cancellation

Edumbe Municipality v Makhoba and Others (1940/16P)

Edumbe Municipality v Makhoba and Others (1940/16P) [2016] ZAKZPHC 100 (27 October 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1940/16P

Judge

Seegobin

The High Court set aside the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s ruling, finding the complaint time-barred and affected by errors about the applicable fund rules.

• Pension Funds Act Section 30p
• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Procedural Fairness
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Pension-funds-act

Steenkamp v Murray (80173/2015)

Steenkamp v Murray (80173/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1244 (21 October 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

80173/2015

Judge

G.T. Avvakoumides

The High Court held a close corporation member personally liable under section 64 after admitting use of agency funds for operational expenses. Prescription failed.

• Close Corporations Act Section 64
• Personal Liability Of Members
• Reckless Trading
• Fraudulent Conduct
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Agency Relationship

Kruger v Director of Public Prosecutions (37681/2011)

Kruger v Director of Public Prosecutions (37681/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 623 (28 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37681/2011

Judge

Strydom

The court found that the plaintiff and his legal team had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arose on 13 October 2009, when all criminal charges were withdrawn in open court and in the presence of the plaintiff and his legal representatives. The procurement of the SAPS docket and court file in August 2012 did not create a new cause of action but merely provided evidence of facts already known. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant wilfully prevented him from coming to know of the existence of the debt, as required by section 12(2) of the Presc…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Malicious Prosecution
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Wrongful Arrest

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

Ekman v Venter & Volschenk Attorneys and Another (44655/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 369 (1 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44655/2013

Judge

C Pretorius

The High Court dismissed special pleas of prescription in a legal-negligence claim against attorneys who failed to institute RAF claims timeously and notify the client promptly.

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Professional Negligence
• Wilful Concealment
• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Attorney Duties
• Prescription-act-section-12