Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another

The respondents (the Le Rouxs) mandated the appellants, their former attorneys, to exercise an option to purchase a farm. The attorneys purported to exercise the option without written authority as required by s 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. Unknown to the respondents, the property had already been sold to a third party and transferred. The respondents unsuccessfully litigated against the third party to enforce the option, with the courts finding the option invalid for non-compliance with the Alienation of Land Act. Thereafter, in 2009, the respondents sued their former attorneys for damages based on breach of mandate. The attorneys raised a special plea of prescription, contending that the claim had prescribed as more than three years had elapsed since the respondents had knowledge of the material facts. The High Court dismissed the plea, but the attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the special plea of prescription and dismissing the respondents’ action with costs.

This judgment reaffirms and consolidates South African jurisprudence on extinctive prescription by emphasising that prescription begins to run once a creditor has knowledge of the minimum material facts, not when the creditor appreciates the legal consequences of those facts. It is particularly significant for professional negligence claims against attorneys, clarifying that ignorance of statutory invalidity or legal implications does not delay prescription.