Mtati v Whitesides Attorneys (CA78/2017)
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
- Prescription Act Section 12
- Running Of Prescription
- Attorney Duty Of Care
- Wrongful Disbursement
- Delictual Claim
- Knowledge Of Debt