- Flynote
-
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)
Loading PDF...
This document is 480.4 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 6
Judgment 5
- Claasen v Bester (872/2010) [2011] ZASCA 197 (23 November 2011)
- H B v J B (952/2012) [2014] ZASCA 14 (24 March 2014)
- McMillan v Bate Chubb & Dickson Incorporated (299/2020) [2021] ZASCA 45 (15 April 2021)
- Mtokonya v Minister of Police [2017] ZACC 33 (19 September 2017)
- Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd [2017] ZACC 32 (5 September 2017)
Legislation 1
Documents citing this one 5
Judgment 5
- D H v A H (914/2023) [2023] ZAECGHC 127 (12 December 2023)
- Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another (969 of 2020) [2022] ZASCA 47 (8 April 2022)
- Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns and Another (CCT 117/22) [2023] ZACC 46 (18 December 2023)
- Makhoba v Standard Bank of South Africa (845/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 213 (9 November 2023)
- Road Accident Fund v Zilwa Attorneys Incorporated and Others (4112/2023) [2024] ZAECMHC 13 (27 March 2024)