McMillan v Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated (299/2020) [2021] ZASCA 45 (15 April 2021)

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

Prescription Act 68 of 1969 – firm of attorneys sued for damages
arising out of drafting of an ante-nuptial contract subsequently found to be invalid
– date of commencement of the running of prescription – meaning of the
expression ‘debt is due’ – s 12(3) requires knowledge of the identity of the debtor
and facts necessary to institute action – knowledge of legal conclusion not
required by s 12(3)

Prescription – extinctive prescription – ‘facts from which the debt arises’ in terms of s 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 – knowledge of legal consequences not required by s 12(3) of the Prescription Act – Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 – failure to comply with s 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act.

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.