South Africa Case Law

Trollip v Phatshoane Henney Attorneys (3683/2018)

Trollip v Phatshoane Henney Attorneys (3683/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 158 (23 June 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3683/2018

Judge

Loubser

The court found that the plaintiff, a lay person, was not informed by the second defendant that the limitation of her claim was due to his negligence. The second defendant created the impression that the limitation was caused by circumstances beyond his control and failed to disclose his omissions. The plaintiff only became aware of the relevant facts and the identity of the debtor after consulting new attorneys on 19 July 2016. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge before this date. The court held that the second defendant wilfully prevented the plaint…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Professional Negligence
• Attorney Client Duties
• Wilful Concealment
• Quantification Of Damages

Rooi v Leon Trichard and Associates (17/2017)

Rooi v Leon Trichard and Associates (17/2017) [2020] ZAECGHC 21 (6 March 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

17/2017

Judge

N P Jaji

Special plea of prescription dismissed. The court held the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff knew, or was deemed to know, the facts timeously.

• Prescription Act
• Professional Negligence
• Onus Of Proof
• Wilful Concealment
• Punitive Costs
• Prescription-act

Funeka v T. Qina and Sons (1725/2011)

Funeka v T. Qina and Sons (1725/2011) [2018] ZAECMHC 11 (22 February 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1725/2011

Judge

RWN Brooks

The court found that the defendant did not wilfully prevent the plaintiff from coming to know of the existence of the debt, as he was himself unaware that the claim had prescribed until he was served with summons. The plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in monitoring the progress of her claim and seeking alternative legal advice at an earlier stage. Her new attorneys, upon receiving her file in February 2010, ought to have realised that the claim against the Road Accident Fund had prescribed and that a claim against the defendant would soon prescribe. The knowledge of the debt by her…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Professional Negligence
• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Onus Of Proof
• Wilful Concealment

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

Ekman v Venter & Volschenk Attorneys and Another (44655/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 541 (1 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44655/2013

Judge

Pretorius

The High Court dismissed attorneys’ special pleas of prescription, finding they wilfully withheld news of expired RAF claims and prescription ran only from disclosure.

• Professional Negligence
• Prescription Act
• Road Accident Fund
• Wilful Concealment
• Attorney Duties
• Professional-negligence

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

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

Ekman v Venter & Volschenk Attorneys and Another (44655/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 369 (1 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44655/2013

Judge

C Pretorius

The High Court dismissed special pleas of prescription in a legal-negligence claim against attorneys who failed to institute RAF claims timeously and notify the client promptly.

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Professional Negligence
• Wilful Concealment
• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Attorney Duties
• Prescription-act-section-12