Rademeyer v Ferreira

The parties concluded a written agreement of sale in August 2008 in terms of which the appellant purchased immovable property from the respondent. The appellant paid a deposit but refused to sign transfer documents or provide guarantees for the balance of the purchase price. In 2012 the respondent instituted application proceedings seeking rectification, specific performance compelling transfer, and alternatively cancellation and damages. An order was granted providing for cancellation and damages if the appellant failed to comply. The appellant did not comply. In 2016 the respondent withdrew an interlocutory application for damages under the same case number and instead issued summons under a new case number claiming damages arising from the cancellation. The appellant raised a special plea that the damages claim had prescribed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the interpretation of judicial interruption of prescription under s 15 of the Prescription Act, confirming that application proceedings seeking declaratory or alternative relief can interrupt prescription in respect of a later damages action arising from the same cause of action. It reinforces that prescription is interrupted where earlier proceedings constitute a step in enforcing the same debt, even if subsequent proceedings are instituted under a different case number.