South Africa Case Law

City of Cape Town v Cell C Limited and Others (20689/2018)

City of Cape Town v Cell C Limited and Others (20689/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 246 (10 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20689/2018

Judge

Slingers

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the facts necessary to institute its claim against the first defendant on 18 November 2015, as its pleaded case was based on strict liability and did not depend on identifying the specific wrongdoer. The plaintiff could have acquired the requisite knowledge to institute proceedings against the second defendant by making reasonable inquiries at the time of the incident. The failure to make basic inquiries constituted a lack of reasonable care, and the plaintiff is deemed to have had constructive knowledge of the facts from the date…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Strict Liability
• Constructive Knowledge
• Vicarious Liability
• Contractual Claim
• Reasonable Care

Hobongwana v Benteler South Africa (Pty) Ltd (494/2019)

Hobongwana v Benteler South Africa (Pty) Ltd (494/2019) [2023] ZAECQBHC 6; (2023) 44 ILJ 1125 (ECP); [2023] 4 BLLR 359 (ECP) (6 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

494/2019

Judge

Bands

The court held that the defendant negligently failed to train and supervise a labour-brokered worker before assigning him to hazardous machinery, causing his back injury.

• Negligence
• Injury On Duty
• Employer Liability
• Training And Supervision
• Causation
• Reasonable Care

CZY v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 24988)

CZY v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 24988) [2021] ZATC 18 (5 August 2021)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT 24988

Judges

Vally, Vincent Kekana, Zeyn Mia

Tax Court held absolution from the instance is unavailable, but reduced an understatement penalty from 25% to 10% after finding reasonable care and no bona fide inadvertent error.

• Understatement Penalty
• Reasonable Care
• Tax Administration Act
• Assessment Objection
• Professional Advice
• Quantification Of Penalty

Monametsi v Miway Insurance (83091/2019)

Monametsi v Miway Insurance (83091/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 478 (22 July 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

83091/2019

Judge

K J Mogale

The High Court dismissed a claim for specific performance against Miway Insurance, finding the insured drove above a 60km/h limit and failed to take reasonable care.

• Insurance Contract
• Specific Performance
• Repudiation
• Reasonable Care
• Contractual Obligation
• Insurance-contract

Paul v ER Consulting Incorporated and Another (22932/2014)

Paul v ER Consulting Incorporated and Another (22932/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 827 (17 October 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22932/2014

Judge

Moshidi

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s damages claim was prescribed because he had the necessary facts and debtor identity by 26 March 2011.

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Commencement Of Prescription
• Knowledge Of Debt
• Reasonable Care
• Hospital Negligence

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

Rautenbach N.O. v CMW Operations (EDMS) Bpk (4623/2012) [2015] ZAFSHC 236 (11 November 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4623/2012

Judge

Rampai

The High Court upheld a special plea of prescription in a claim alleging failure to arrange full life cover for a deceased farmer’s debt.

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Constructive Knowledge
• Onus Of Proof
• Reasonable Care
• Contractual Breach

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

Ekman v Venter & Volschenk Attorneys and Another (44655/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 358 (1 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44655/2013

Judge

C Pretorius

The High Court dismissed special pleas of prescription against attorneys who failed to timeously advise a client that his RAF claims had prescribed.

• Professional Negligence
• Prescription Act
• Road Accident Fund
• Wilful Concealment
• Reasonable Care
• Attorney Client Duties

Mabaso v Coetzer (1825/2013)

Mabaso v Coetzer (1825/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 225 (28 November 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1825/2013

Judge

Moeng

The court found that the defendant did accept a mandate from the plaintiff to lodge and prosecute her claim against the Road Accident Fund, as evidenced by the contents of the letter dated 10 March 2008, which referenced a breach of trust and termination of mandate. The plaintiff was an unsophisticated person who relied on the defendant's assurances and made reasonable enquiries about her claim. The court rejected the defendant's version that the plaintiff was made aware of the termination of the mandate and the impending prescription. The plaintiff only became aware of the defendant's failur…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Mandate
• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Reasonable Care
• Onus Of Proof

Gunase v Anirudh (826/2010)

Gunase v Anirudh (826/2010) [2011] ZASCA 231; 2012 (2) SA 398 (SCA) (30 November 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

826/2010

Judges

Brand, Maya, Seriti

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent’s damages claim had prescribed because he failed to exercise reasonable care to discover that no RAF claim had been lodged.

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea
• Reasonable Care
• Knowledge Of Debt
• Running Of Prescription
• Prescription

Viviers NO and Another v Barnard NO (A441/2007)

Viviers NO and Another v Barnard NO (A441/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 153 (19 December 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A441/2007

Judges

Ebrahim, R, Van Zyl, R

High Court appeal on prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. The court held the executor had constructive knowledge by February 2003 and upheld the special plea.

• Extinctive Prescription
• Verjaringswet
• Reasonable Care
• Knowledge Of Debtor
• Contractual Modification
• Extinctive-prescription