SUMMARY This matter dealt with the question of prescription insofar as it relates to the Appellant’s claim for damages against the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (the “Respondent”) for the loss suffered as a result of the Respondent’s alleged unlawful failure to maintain an irrigation canal. The failure, on the part of the Respondent,
SUMMARY BKB Limited (“the Plaintiff”) entered into a verbal agreement with Pieter Bezuidenhout (“the Defendant”), wherein the Plaintiff would deliver fertilizer to the Defendant at the Defendant’s special instance, from time to time. Upon delivery of the fertilizer, it was an express, alternatively implied, alternatively tacit term that the Defendant would be invoiced, and that
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This matter dealt with the interpretation of section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (“the RAF Act”), particularly, the manner in which the five-year prescription period applicable to the Respondent’s claim should be calculated. On 17 June 2009, the Respondent, and her minor child where hit by a