Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Bisschoff N.O obo Reyners

On 20 February 2001, Denzil John Reyners fell from a moving train and sustained severe brain injuries. A curator ad litem, Advocate Christo Bisschoff N.O., was appointed. Summons was issued in August 2013 on a delictual claim against PRASA. PRASA admitted 80% liability. On 3 June 2020, the trial court (Goliath DJP) awarded damages of R3 246 484 plus interest at 15.5% from date of service of summons. PRASA's appeal to the Full Court succeeded, but the plaintiff's further appeal to the SCA succeeded on 28 November 2023, reinstating the trial court's order. A writ of execution was issued for over R10 million. PRASA made two payments totaling approximately R6.8 million and claimed the judgment debt was satisfied. The plaintiff disputed this, leading to the current application and counter-application regarding the correct interest calculation.

• Whether the in duplum rule applies to pre-judgment interest awarded on an unliquidated debt (delictual damages) in terms of section 2A of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975.
• Whether post-judgment interest commences from the date of the trial court's judgment (3 June 2020) or the date of the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment (28 November 2023) when the appeal court reinstates the trial court's order.
• Whether the applicable interest rate for post-judgment interest is the rate prescribed at the time the trial court delivered judgment or the rate applicable when the summons was served.
• What the correct calculation of the outstanding judgment debt is, considering the interplay of pre- and post-judgment interest and the application of the in duplum rule.

1. PRASA's application (Part B) is dismissed with costs, including costs of Part A, the hearing on 19 April 2024, costs in execution, and costs of the counter-application. 2. The plaintiff's counter-application is granted. It is declared that as at 7 August 2024, PRASA is obliged to pay a balance of R2 320 322.68, plus interest at 9.75% per annum from that date to date of payment.

1. The in duplum rule does not apply to pre-judgment interest on unliquidated debts because such interest is not 'arrear interest'; the debt only becomes due and payable upon the court's judgment fixing the quantum. 2. Post-judgment interest on a reinstated judgment debt commences from the date the trial court (court of first instance) handed down judgment, not the date of the appellate court's judgment. 3. The rate of post-judgment interest is the prescribed rate applicable at the time the trial court judgment is delivered, not the rate at the commencement of the matter.

The court noted that while the Constitutional Court in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments used its own judgment date to commence post-judgment interest, this was an exception to the general rule and was based on the specific agreement of the parties in that matter, the massive size of the debt, and the fact that the debtors were successful. This exception does not overturn the usual practice that post-judgment interest runs from the date of the trial court's judgment.

This judgment clarifies the application of the in duplum rule in the context of delictual claims for unliquidated damages, affirming the distinction between arrear interest and pre-judgment interest awarded under the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act. It also provides a clear precedent on the commencement date and applicable rate for post-judgment interest when a trial judgment is challenged on appeal and subsequently reinstated, distinguishing the specific exception in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments from the general rule.