Truter v Deysel

Last updated

Truter v Deysel
Court Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa)
Full case nameTruter and Another v Deysel
Decided17 March 2006
Docket nos.043/05
Citation(s) [2006] ZASCA 16; 2006 (4) SA 168 (SCA)
Case history
Appealed fromDeysel v Truter and Another 2005 (5) SA 598 (C) in the High Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Court membership
Judges sitting Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and van Heerden JA
Case opinions
Decision byVan Heerden JA (unanimous)
Keywords

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action". It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered by Judge of Appeal Belinda van Heerden on 17 March. [1] The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa.

Contents

The plaintiff's claim was based on delict for personal injury sustained seven years earlier. The case turned on the question of when exactly, in terms of the Prescription Act, 1969, the period of prescription commences. The court held that prescription begins to run when the creditor acquires knowledge, or is deemed to have acquired knowledge, of "the facts from which the debt arises": the creditor acquires a complete cause of action for the recovery of debt when he is in possession of the entire set of facts upon which he relies to prove his claim. The cause of action is therefore complete as soon as the creditor sustains some harm; knowledge of fault or unlawfulness is not required. In this case, therefore, prescription was not delayed by the plaintiff's delay in securing an expert opinion to the effect that the defendants' conduct was negligent; an expert opinion of that kind did not constitute a fact, but instead was evidence.

Facts

The respondent (plaintiff a quo), Marthinus Albertus Deysel, instituted action in the High Court against the appellants (defendants a quo) for damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by him as a result of the negligence of the defendants in their performance on him of certain medical and surgical procedures. The defendants raised a special plea of prescription. It appeared that, although the procedures had been performed on the plaintiff in 1993, it was only in early 2000 that he managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had conducted themselves negligently; for that reason, that summons was issued only in April 2000. Under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, the plaintiff's claim was subject to a three-year extinctive period of prescription

The question which fell for determination by the High Court was the time at which the period of prescription in respect of the plaintiff's claim had commenced to run. The High Court dismissed the special plea, finding that the period of prescription had commenced running only when the plaintiff had managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had been negligent.

Judgment

In the Supreme Court of Appeal, Judge of Appeal van Heerden held on behalf of a unanimous bench that under section 12 of the Prescription Act, prescription of a debt (which included a delictual debt) began running when the debt became due. A debt became due, in turn, when the creditor acquired knowledge of the facts from which the debt arose; in other words, when the creditor acquired a complete cause of action for the recovery of the debt, or when the entire set of facts upon which he relied to prove his claim was in place. [2]

The court found that, in a delictual claim, the requirements of fault and unlawfulness were not factual ingredients of the cause of action; they were, rather, legal conclusions to be drawn from the facts. [3] For the purposes of prescription, "cause of action" meant every fact which it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in his claim, although it did not comprise every piece of evidence which was necessary to prove those facts. [4] An expert opinion, to the effect that certain conduct had been negligent, was not itself a fact, but, rather, evidence. [5]

The plaintiff in the present case, to the mind of Van Heerden, had not lacked capacity to appreciate that a wrong had been done to him. The running of prescription could therefore not be delayed on that ground. [6] In accordance with the "once and for all" rule, a plaintiff's cause of action is complete as soon as he sustains some damage, not only in respect of the damage actually sustained, but also in respect of any damage yet to be sustained. [7] The court found that all of the facts and information in respect of the operations performed on the plaintiff by the defendants had been known, or had been readily accessible, to him and his legal representatives as early as 1994 or 1995. [8] Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and the special plea, [9] reversing the decision of the Cape Provincial Division.

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.

Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio", meaning "no cause of action arises from a wrong". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent to which an innocent party may recover any property already conveyed through the transaction. Hence, illegality raises important questions for English unjust enrichment law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary management relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African contract law</span> Law about agreements between two or more parties

South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", and is rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.

The South African law of delict engages primarily with 'the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered'. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict 'in general terms [...] as a civil wrong', and more narrowly as 'wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person'. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.

Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict, but with implications also for criminal law. It was heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 21 August 2003, with judgment handed down on 26 September.

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Saunderson and Others is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 23 November 2005 and decided on 15 December 2005. In a unanimous judgment written by Judges of Appeal Edwin Cameron and Robert Nugent, the court dealt with the proper application of Jaftha v Schoeman.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum and Another is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Marais JA, Navsa JA and Chetty AJA on May 21, 2001, with judgment handed down on June 1. Counsel for the appellant was MD Kuper SC ; PM Wulfsohn SC appeared for the respondents.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Africa Bpk is an important case in South African law of delict, in particular in the area of negligent misstatements. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 5, 1979, with judgment handed down on May 25, 1979.

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v OK Bazaars (1929) Ltd is an important case in the South African law of delict, particularly the area of negligent misstatement. It was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by André Gautschi AJ from 8–16 February 2000, with judgment handed down on 17 March. JM Suttner SC appeared for the plaintiff, and LRG Serrurier SC for the defendant.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

In Langley Fox Building Partnership (Pty) Ltd v De Valence, an important case in South African law, the Supreme Court of Appeal once more affirmed that a duty cast upon a defendant might be such that it is discharged only if reasonable precautions to avoid the harm are actually taken, and that the defendant who appoints another to take those steps, and fails to do so, will be liable for the failure, although it was careful to emphasise that Stratford ACJ did not purport to say that "there might be liability as an invariable rule whenever the work entails danger to the public." Goldstone AJA said that "the correct approach to the liability of an employer for the negligence of an independent contractor is to apply the fundamental rule that obliges a person to exercise that degree of care which the circumstances demand."

<i>Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd</i>

Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company cannot make any claim against a director for breach of duty if the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.

<i>DE v RH</i> South African legal case

DE v RH is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the law of delict. The court abolished the third-party delictual claim for adultery, holding unanimously that society's contemporary boni mores indicated that the act of adultery by a third party lacks wrongfulness and therefore does not give rise to delictual liability. The judgment was handed down without papers on 19 June 2015 and was written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, with a separate concurrence by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

References

Books

Case law

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The plaintiff's attorneys were MacRobert Inc, Cape Town, and Claude Reid Inc, Bloemfontein. The respondents' attorneys were Millers Inc, Cape Town, and Rosendorff Reitz Barry, Bloemfontein.
  2. ↑ Paras 11, 16.
  3. ↑ Para 17.
  4. ↑ Para 19.
  5. ↑ Para 20.
  6. ↑ Para 21.
  7. ↑ Para 22.
  8. ↑ Para 25.
  9. ↑ Para 29.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.