South Africa Case Law

Arcus v Arcus (4/2021)

Arcus v Arcus (4/2021) [2022] ZASCA 9; [2022] 1 All SA 626 (SCA); 2022 (3) SA 149 (SCA) (21 January 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

4/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Mocumie, Hughes, Kgoele, Smith

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that maintenance orders, whether arising from a consent paper incorporated into a divorce order or granted by a maintenance court, possess the attributes of a judgment debt for the purposes of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act. These orders are final and enforceable until varied or discharged upon new facts, are executable without further proof, and are appealable. The fact that maintenance orders may be varied does not detract from their status as judgment debts, as any variation introduces a new dispute and does not affect the finality of the origina…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Orders
• Prescription Periods
• Judgment Debt
• Divorce Consents
• Arrear Maintenance

Gabuza v Road Accident Fund (70524/16)

Gabuza v Road Accident Fund (70524/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 634; 2020 (2) SA 228 (GP) (29 August 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70524/16

Judge

Van der Schyff

The court held that the principle established in Road Accident Fund v Masindi applies to the calculation of prescription periods under section 23 of the Road Accident Fund Act. When the last day for lodging a claim falls on a day when the Post Office or Fund's offices are closed or have limited hours, the period is extended to the next working day. The court found that the legislature was aware of the practical limitations of office hours and intended to protect claimants' rights. Applying the FILO method, the prescription period ended on Saturday, 21 March 2015, but since the Post Office clo…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Periods
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Calculation Of Time
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Statutory Interpretation

Road Accident Fund v Masindi (586/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Masindi (586/2017) [2018] ZASCA 94; 2018 (6) SA 481 (SCA) (1 June 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

586/2017

Judges

Shongwe, Majiedt, Swain, Mocumie, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, on a proper interpretation of s 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act, where the last day of the five year prescription period falls on a day when the court is closed, such as a public holiday, the period is extended to the next working day. The court reasoned that a strict and literal approach would unjustly deprive claimants of their full statutory period and infringe the constitutional right of access to courts. The court drew on English authorities, notably Pritam Kaur and Nottingham City Council, which endorse extending statutory periods to the next w…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Periods
• Statutory Interpretation
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Access To Courts
• Public Holiday Extension

SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator (NCT/31877/2015/56(1))

SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator (NCT/31877/2015/56(1)) [2018] ZANCT 1 (3 January 2018)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/31877/2015/56(1)

Judges

J Simpson, B Dumisa, X May

The Tribunal set aside a compliance notice against SA Taxi, finding the complaint had prescribed under section 166 of the National Credit Act.

• Credit Provider Compliance
• Insurance Premiums
• Prescription Periods
• Fair Administrative Action
• National Credit Act
• National-credit-act

Factaprops 1052 CC and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa t/a Land Bank (353/2016)

Factaprops 1052 CC and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa t/a Land Bank (353/2016) [2017] ZASCA 45; 2017 (4) SA 495 (SCA) (30 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

353/2016

Judges

Tshiqi, Zondi, Van der Merwe, Nicholls, Coppin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'mortgage bond' in section 11(a)(i) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 must be interpreted to include a special notarial bond. This conclusion is supported by the ordinary grammatical meaning of 'mortgage', the Afrikaans text of the Act, historical legislative usage, and the public record nature of notarial bonds. The distinction drawn in the Deeds Registries Act is relevant only for deeds attestation and registration, not for prescription purposes. Consequently, the applicable prescription period for a debt secured by a special notarial bond i…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Periods
• Special Notarial Bond
• Mortgage Bond Interpretation
• Security By Means Of Movable Property Act
• Suretyship Liability

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Boeke (12506/07)

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Boeke (12506/07) [2011] ZAGPJHC 253 (17 February 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12506/07

Judge

C.P. Rabie

The court held that debts secured by special notarial bonds attract a 30-year prescription period under section 11(a)(i) of the Prescription Act.

• Prescription Periods
• Mortgage Bonds
• Notarial Bonds
• Security For Debt
• Prescription-periods
• Mortgage-bonds

Meyer en Andere v Roux en 'n Ander (37719/2007)

Meyer en Andere v Roux en 'n Ander (37719/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 327 (27 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

37719/2007

Judge

Fabricius

The court held that the clause in the settlement agreement entitling the applicants to a share of the net proceeds from the sale of the property is a 'debt' arising from a court order and thus prescribes only after 30 years in terms of section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act. The defence of prescription raised by the first respondent was rejected. The clause is not contra bones mores, nor have the applicants waived their rights under the agreement. Accordingly, the relief sought by the applicants was granted, and the counter-application was dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement
• Prescription Periods
• Bones Mores
• Maintenance And Property Orders

Road Accident Fund v Mdeyide (CCT70/06)

Road Accident Fund v Mdeyide (CCT70/06) [2007] ZACC 7; 2007 (7) BCLR 805 (CC); 2008 (1) SA 535 (CC) (4 April 2007)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT70/06

Judges

Navsa AJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court's order declaring section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act unconstitutional could not be confirmed due to a lack of proper inquiry into the plaintiff's capacity to litigate. The plaintiff's mental capacity and ability to manage his affairs were not adequately investigated, which is essential for determining whether he could benefit from the exceptions to prescription under section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act or section 23(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The matter was remitted to the High Court for an inquiry in terms of Uniform Rule…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Periods
• Access To Court
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Curatorship
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Condonation

Absa Bank Limited v Erasmus (9644/04 , 9644/2004)

Absa Bank Limited v Erasmus (9644/04 , 9644/2004) [2006] ZAWCHC 25; 2007 (2) SA 545 (C) (14 June 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9644/2004

Judge

E Moosa

The court found that the plaintiff proved the existence and terms of the loan agreement, which was secured by a covering bond over the defendant's property. The defendant failed to prove any fraudulent conduct by the plaintiff, as the objective evidence and probabilities did not support his allegations. The defendant had constructive knowledge of the bond's contents, including the interest rate and costs clause. The defence of prescription was dismissed, as the Prescription Act provides a 30-year period for debts secured by a mortgage bond, and both principal and interest are covered. The def…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Prescription Periods
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• In Duplum Rule
• Counterclaim For Damages
• Onus Of Proof

Geldenhuys & Joubert v Van Wyk and Another; Van Wyk v Geldenhuys & Joubert and Another (471/2003, 472/2003)

Geldenhuys & Joubert v Van Wyk and Another; Van Wyk v Geldenhuys & Joubert and Another (471/2003, 472/2003) [2004] ZASCA 121; [2005] 2 All SA 460 (SCA); 2005 (2) SA 512 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

471/2003, 472/2003

Judges

Scott JA, Cameron JA, Brand JA, Nugent JA, Erasmus AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that regulation 2(3), which requires claims for compensation involving injury caused by unidentified vehicles to be lodged within two years, is valid. The Act expressly empowers the Minister to subordinate the Fund's liability to unidentified vehicle claimants to regulatory conditions. The regulation makes the lodging of the claim within two years a precondition to the existence of the debt, and therefore the Prescription Act does not apply. The distinction between identified and unidentified vehicle claims is fundamental, as the latter creates a statutory rig…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription Periods
• Ministerial Regulation Validity
• Unidentified Vehicle Claims
• Delegated Legislation
• Legal Disability