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
Mthembu v Woolworths (Pty) Limited and Another (44235/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 914 (29 July 2024)
The High Court upheld special pleas of prescription in a delict claim for injury to dignity arising from a search, and dismissed the action with costs.
Lisenga v Minister of Justice (1609/2019) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 43 (25 June 2024)
The court found that Lisenga acquired knowledge of the conviction and criminal record in 2012 and 2013 during employment interviews, which constituted the minimum facts necessary to institute a delictual claim against the Minister. Section 12 of the Prescription Act does not require knowledge of legal consequences, only of the facts giving rise to the claim. The exceptions in Section 12(2) and (3) were not applicable, as there was no evidence that the Minister prevented Lisenga from acquiring knowledge, and Lisenga knew the identity of the debtor. The court held that prescription commenced in…
Source excerpt
Lordan N.O and Others v Tight Business Enterprises CC (A320/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1967 (27 November 2023)
The court held that, in accordance with established legal principles, the fulfilment of a suspensive condition in a contract results in the contract and the parties' rights relating back to the date of signature, unless the contract stipulates otherwise. The respondent's claim for specific performance under the sale agreement was subject to prescription, and the prescription period commenced on the date the agreement was signed, not the date the suspensive condition was fulfilled. The respondent's summons was issued more than three years after the date of signature, and therefore the claim ha…
Source excerpt
Stemmet and Another v Mokhethi and Another (681/2022) [2023] ZASCA 127 (4 October 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were in possession of sufficient facts to institute action against the appellants as early as June 2014. The respondents had observed structural cracks, patchwork indicating concealment, and deterioration of the property, which was sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the appellants had fraudulently concealed latent defects. The court found that knowledge of the precise cause of the defects was not required for prescription to commence. The majority of the full court erred in concluding that prescription only began when the responde…
Source excerpt
Venter and Another v Steyn and Others (3368/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 107 (19 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed special pleas of prescription in a dispute involving a close corporation and alleged repayments, finding the claims were not prescribed.
Madonsela v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (40764/2015) [2022] ZAGPJHC 378 (30 May 2022)
The High Court granted leave to amend a plea to add a special plea of prescription, finding no irreparable prejudice and no mala fides, but ordered costs against the applicant.
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
Kohliso v Road Accident Fund (A126/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 703 (22 October 2021)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a prescription ruling, finding the claimant had received the repudiation letter and had delayed too long to sue.
Paul v ER Consulting Incorporated and Another (22932/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 827 (17 October 2018)
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.
Grimbeek v Jakobo (922/2017) [2018] ZASCA 131 (27 September 2018)
The SCA held that a client’s failure to follow up on an attorney’s RAF claim was not unreasonable on the facts, so prescription was not proven.
Explore more
