High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape, Mthatha - 2013 March

1 judgment
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
1 judgment
Citation
Judgment date
March 2013
Plaintiff’s claim prescribed because prescription began when he learned of the CCMA ruling; correspondence did not interrupt prescription.
Prescription — when prescription begins to run; creditor must have minimum facts to institute action (Truter v Deysel principles); interruption of prescription by acknowledgment (s 14) requires express or tacit admission; correspondence not amounting to written admission does not interrupt prescription.
7 March 2013