Loni v Member of Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape, Bhisho [2018] ZACC 2 (22 February 2018)

Extinctive prescription – s 12(3) of Prescription Act 68 of 1969 – involves two enquiries in respect of facts from which the debt arises (primary facts) – first: determination of primary facts – second: ascertainment of when primary facts were known or should reasonably have been known.

Prescription Act 68 of 1969 — section 12(3) — clients’
professional negligence claim against legal practitioner —
knowledge of facts may include knowledge of a legal conclusion
— exception to the general rule

Extinctive prescription – s 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 – inquiry as to what constitutes knowledge of sufficient facts giving rise to a claim against a hospital – whether the claimant only acquired such knowledge upon consulting with a legal practitioner.

Prescription — delictual claims for damages — unconstitutionality of President’s conduct a component of alleged wrongfulness — whether completion of cause of action delayed until Constitutional Court makes order confirming or declaring unconstitutionality of President’s conduct.

Prescription — whether institution of review application by third party in respect of President’s unconstitutional conduct interrupted prescription in respect of plaintiffs’ damages claims — whether intervention by certain plaintiffs in the review interrupted prescription in respect of the damages claims.

Unjustified enrichment – s 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 (Prescription Act) – commencement of the running of prescription – whether the exception applicable to claims against legal practitioners to the effect that knowledge of legal conclusion for the purposes of s 12(3) of the Prescription Act should be extended to non-legal practitioners.

Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 – condonation – section 3(4)(b) – unreasonable prejudice to Sate – requirement not alleged or met – signature of Applicant suspect – no medical opinion – prescription – knowledge of facts – minor’s claim not prescribed – application dismissed with costs