Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ramontja v Legal Aid South Africa (2021/44369) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1222 (26 November 2024)
The High Court granted condonation for late notice against Legal Aid South Africa in a professional negligence claim arising from alleged failure to advise on appeal rights.
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
Zwane v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 214; 74773/2014 (13 March 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts material to unlawfulness and fault regarding the Second Defendant (the bank) by 14 January 2010, as she was aware that funds were withdrawn from the deceased's account based on fraudulent instructions and that her signature did not match the bank's records. This was sufficient to plead wrongfulness and fault against the bank, and prescription began to run from that date. However, regarding the First Defendant (the Minister/Master’s office), the plaintiff did not have knowledge of the origin of the fraudulent…
Source excerpt
Stemmet and Another v Mokhethi and Another (A21/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 55; [2022] 2 All SA 896 (FB) (17 March 2022)
The majority held that prescription did not begin to run until the respondents received the Absa Insurance letter on 12 August 2014, which revealed the latent nature of the defects and prior patchwork. Until then, the respondents lacked the minimum facts necessary to institute action, including the cause of the defects and the identity of the debtor. The court found that the appellants, as sellers, deliberately concealed the latent defects by filling cracks and painting over them, amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation. This conduct deprived them of protection under the voetstoots clause.…
Source excerpt
Minister of Police v Zamani (12/2019) [2021] ZAECBHC 1 (2 February 2021)
The court held that, even if the applicant was entitled to rely on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, the evidence did not bring the case within the purview of the section. The respondent discharged the onus to establish that he acquired knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt only in November 2018, after consulting his lawyer and having sight of the police docket. The court found that the line between factual and legal knowledge under section 12(3) is narrow and may result in conflation. While the impugned judgment was correct, the court identified a…
Source excerpt
Kekana v Road Accident Fund (206/2017) [2018] ZASCA 75 (31 May 2018)
The SCA held that prescription had run because the claimant already knew the facts giving rise to his claim; later legal advice did not restart time.
Loni v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape Bhisho (CCT54/17) [2018] ZACC 2; 2018 (3) SA 335 (CC); 2018 (6) BCLR 659 (CC) (22 February 2018)
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant had knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim long before consulting an independent medical professional. The objective standard under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires that a reasonable person in the applicant's position would have suspected sub-standard treatment and sought further advice, given the ongoing pain, infection, and possession of his medical file. The Court distinguished the facts from those in Links, finding that the applicant's personal experience and available records were sufficient to trigger prescription.…
Source excerpt
V.M obo T.M and Another v MEC of Health-North West (818/14) [2017] ZANWHC 11 (10 February 2017)
The High Court held that the defendant failed to prove prescription and dismissed the special plea with costs in a medical-negligence damages claim.
Makhondo v Praga Technical (Pty) Ltd (41276/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1218 (17 November 2016)
The court held that the defendant failed to discharge its onus of proving that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the identity of Praga as his debtor prior to October 2013. The plaintiff's belief that he only had a Workman's Compensation claim was reasonable in the circumstances, given his education, employment status, and the advice received from both his doctor and a superior at Praga. The defendant did not challenge the plaintiff's version in pleadings or cross-examination, nor did it plead or establish constructive knowledge. The court rejected the defendant's narrow in…
Source excerpt
Coetzer v Mabaso (1825/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 72 (20 March 2015)
The court granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench after finding that another court might reach a different conclusion on prescription and credibility findings.
Explore more
