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
Gcam-Gcam v Minister of Police (926/2018) [2025] ZAECMHC 51 (10 June 2025)
High Court judgment on prescription and statutory notice in a wrongful arrest and detention claim. The court held prescription ran from the arrest date, upheld both special pleas, and dismissed the claim.
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Great Cormorant Investments 75 (Pty) Limited (23073/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 177 (25 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a prescription special plea, finding that the debt only became due when an arbitration award fixed the rental on 18 September 2020.
RFS Homeloans (Pty) Ltd v National Fund for Municipal Workers (15023/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2004 (12 December 2023)
The court found that the defendant's special plea of prescription was sufficiently pleaded, as the amounts claimed were annual payments and the plea identified the relevant years. The court held that the cause of action for condictio indebiti arises immediately after payment, but section 12(3) of the Prescription Act qualifies this by requiring knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim. The evidence established that the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable care, had acquired the necessary knowledge by 2015, when its auditor and attorney advised that the repo fees were not due and were a…
Source excerpt
Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another (969/2020) [2022] ZASCA 47 (8 April 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription begins to run when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, not when the creditor becomes aware of the legal consequences of those facts. The plaintiffs had the requisite knowledge on or about 26 September 2003, when they mandated the defendants to exercise the option and were told no signature was required, or at the latest by January 2005 when they appointed new attorneys. Their lack of knowledge of the provisions of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act was a legal conclusion,…
Source excerpt
Van Heerden & Brummer Inc v Bath (356/2020) [2021] ZASCA 80 (11 June 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription in terms of s 12(3) of the Prescription Act commences when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, not when the creditor obtains legal certainty or the full extent of damages. The respondent had knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim for professional negligence against the appellant by at least 26 September 2012, following consultations and communications regarding the invalidity of the antenuptial contract. The running of prescription is not postponed until th…
Source excerpt
McMillan v Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated (299/2020) [2021] ZASCA 45 (15 April 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute a claim for damages against the respondent law firm on 9 or 12 May 2014, when he was advised of a potential claim and instructed to seek independent legal advice due to a conflict of interest. Prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act began to run from that date, not from the date the high court declared the antenuptial contract invalid. The appellant's failure to appreciate the legal consequences or the respondent's refusal to concede liability did not delay the…
Source excerpt
Mahlasela v Klopper Jonker Incorporated (2016/11734) [2020] ZAGPJHC 249 (13 October 2020)
The High Court upheld a prescription special plea, finding the plaintiff knew by January 2013 of the facts and debtor identity, so her 2016 claim was late.
Real Global Business-Solutions v State Information Technology Agency (32647/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 55 (10 February 2020)
The court found that the plaintiff's claims for payment under the service level agreements became due 30 days after the submission of invoices and supporting documents, which occurred between 2009 and January 2013. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's assertion that the debt only became due after resubmission of documents in June 2014. The defendant's requests for additional or legible documents did not interrupt prescription, as the plaintiff had already complied with its obligations under the agreements. Consequently, the claims prescribed before summons was issued in May 2017, and…
Source excerpt
Augustine v Minister of Safety and Security (3771/2007) [2018] ZAKZDHC 20 (29 May 2018)
The court held that prescription did not begin to run from the date of arrest and detention, as the plaintiff's claim was based on a continuing wrong encompassing arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff did not have access to all material facts while charges were pending and investigations ongoing. Prescription only commenced upon the final withdrawal of charges on 26 September 2006, when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the complete cause of action. The claim was instituted within three years of this date, and therefore, the special plea of prescription fails. The cour…
Source excerpt
Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 32 (8 May 2018)
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
Explore more
