This document is 147.1 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 4
Act
3
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
·
Finance and Money
|
Documents citing this one 9
Judgment
9
Reported
|
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’
|
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 |