Van Zijl v Hoogenhout

The plaintiff (Van Zijl) was sexually abused by the defendant (Hoogenhout), her uncle by marriage, over a prolonged period between 1958 and 1967 when she was a child aged between six and fifteen. The abuse involved escalating sexual assaults, including rape, accompanied by threats, secrecy, and manipulation. Due to the psychological effects of the abuse, reinforced by disbelief and blame from family members, the plaintiff internalised responsibility for the abuse and suffered severe long‑term psychological harm. She attained majority in 1973 but only realised in about 1997, after psychological insight and therapy, that the defendant was legally responsible for her harm. She instituted a civil claim for damages in 1999. The defendant raised a special plea of prescription under the Prescription Act 18 of 1943, contending that the claim had prescribed three years after the plaintiff reached majority.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Cape High Court upholding the special plea of prescription and dismissing the action was set aside. The special plea of prescription was dismissed, and the matter was allowed to proceed on the merits.

This was the first South African appellate decision to address prescription in the context of adult survivors of child sexual abuse. It established a nuanced and victim‑sensitive interpretation of prescription statutes, recognising the unique psychological effects of child abuse. The case significantly expanded access to courts for abuse survivors and influenced later jurisprudence on knowledge, blame attribution, and prescription under both the 1943 and 1969 Prescription Acts.