Expanded FIRAC Case-Notes (with citations)

Compiled by ChatGPT — 2025-09-13

Below are expanded FIRAC-style case notes for the cases you requested. Each entry includes:
Facts, Issue(s), Rule(s), Application (analysis), Conclusion, and a suggested short quotation
placeholder (verbatim text when available). I have provided citations to the official judgment
pages (links) where the judgment or media summary is available. Where the full text could not be
retrieved from the public source during this session, I have indicated this clearly and included the
authoritative citation/URL for you to check or for me to extract verbatim text on request.

1. Mokalapa v Ramushu Mashile Twala Inc (83874/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 54

 Facts —

Plaintiff (Ms Mokalapa) sued a firm of attorneys for alleged professional negligence in the
handling of her claim, seeking damages. The claim dates and events were pleaded over a series of
years and a special plea of prescription was raised by the defendants.

 Issue —

Whether the plaintiff’s claim was competent and not prescribed; when prescription started to run;
whether the defendants breached duties of care owed to the plaintiff as legal practitioners.

 Rule(s) —

General delict/professional negligence principles (duty, breach, causation, loss) and the
Prescription Act (especially provisions on when prescription begins and on
interruption/suspension of prescription).

 Application / Analysis —

The court examined the pleadings and the dates on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the
material facts; it applied the Truter/knowledge-of-facts approach to determine whether
prescription had run. The court also considered the particular features of professional negligence
claims against legal practitioners when assessing when the claim accrued.

 Conclusion / Order —

The High Court dismissed / determined the special plea on the basis discussed in the reasons (see
full judgment).

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

QUOTE UNAVAILABLE (full judgment PDF could not be retrieved automatically during this
session). See source below for the official text; I can extract and insert a verbatim paragraph if
you want.
 Full citation / source —

Basson J, High Court (North Gauteng, Pretoria) — Mokalapa v Ramushu Mashile Twala Inc
(83874/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 54. Source: LawLibrary/SAFLII listing.
citeturn7view0turn0search0

---

2. Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited v Mfate NO [2024] ZACC 16

 Facts —

Dispute concerned an injured litigant who suffered permanent mental incapacity and the effect of
a curator ad litem appointed to represent her in a damages claim. Shoprite raised a special plea
based on prescription, arguing that the appointment affected the impediment provisions of s 13(1)
of the Prescription Act.

 Issue —

Whether the appointment of a curator ad litem for a person suffering from mental incapacity
causes the impediment referred to in s 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 to cease, and
relatedly whether ss 12 and 13 of the Prescription Act are mutually exclusive in their operation.

 Rule(s) —

Interpretation and interplay of sections 12 and 13 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969;

Constitutional Court interpretive duties under s 39(2) of the Constitution when statutory
provisions must be read consistently with constitutional values.

 Application / Analysis —

The Court analysed prior authority on prescription and incapacity, including the approach to
when prescription commences and when it is suspended or interrupted. It considered whether a
curator appointed to prosecute litigation necessarily removes or replaces the statutory impediment
(mental incapacity) that prevents prescription from running.

 Conclusion / Order —

The Constitutional Court rejected the broad submission that the appointment of a curator ad litem
in all cases has the effect of ending the impediment under s 13(1)(a). The Court clarified the
correct approach to assessing whether an impediment continues and the limited circumstances in
which prescription will be held to have been interrupted or suspended.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (from the judgment): See the Court’s clear formulation of the legal question
and conclusion at the start of the judgment. (Full verbatim paragraph available at the official
judgment PDF.)

 Full citation / source —

Constitutional Court of South Africa — Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited v Mfate NO (CCT
55/23) [2024] ZACC 16. Source: LawLibrary and Concourt judgment page.
citeturn2view0turn0search5

---

3. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Tembani and Others
[2024] ZACC 5
 Facts —

Multiple applicants sued the President and others for delictual damages arising from alleged
unconstitutional conduct. There were interrelated review applications and questions about
whether review proceedings (by other parties) affect the running of prescription for the damages
claims.

 Issue —

Whether the institution of a review application in respect of the President’s conduct interrupts or
delays prescription as to third-party damages claims; and when a delictual cause of action accrues
where constitutional unlawfulness is alleged.

 Rule(s) —

Prescription Act principles (when a debt becomes due / the creditor gains knowledge of material
facts), the role of review applications, and the relationship between constitutional invalidity and
accrual of civil claims.

 Application / Analysis —

The Court considered whether awaiting the outcome of a review (or confirmation of
constitutional invalidity by the courts) should defer the accrual of delictual claims and thereby
delay prescription. It analysed prior authorities and the statutory scheme to determine whether
prescription should be paused pending constitutional litigation by third parties.

 Conclusion / Order —

The Constitutional Court rejected the submission that prescription was generally suspended until
constitutional invalidity was declared; it clarified when prescription runs in relation to executive
conduct and third-party challenges.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (verbatim) — see the Court’s summary of its holding in the reasons section
(official PDF).

 Full citation / source —

Constitutional Court — President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Tembani and
Others (CCT 162/22) [2024] ZACC 5. Source: LawLibrary/Concourt.
citeturn0search10turn0search6

---

4. Sanoj Jeewan v Transnet SOC Limited and Another [2024] ZASCA 108
 Facts —

Appellant (Jeewan) sued Transnet claiming damages (employment-related). The High Court
sustained special pleas of prescription, jurisdiction and res judicata in favour of Transnet; the
matter was appealed to the SCA.

 Issue —

Whether the special pleas of prescription, jurisdiction and res judicata were correctly upheld and,
specifically, when the debt became due for prescription purposes.

 Rule(s) —

Principles on prescription (knowledge-of-facts approach), jurisdictional rules for

delict/contractual claims and the doctrine of res judicata.

 Application / Analysis —

The SCA reviewed agreed facts, evaluated the effect of prior proceedings (including referral to
arbitration or tribunal), and applied section 11(d) and related provisions to determine the accrual
date for prescription.

 Conclusion / Order —

The SCA held that the appellant’s claim had prescribed; the appeal was dismissed to the extent
reflected in the SCA judgment.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (verbatim) — SCA media summary and the Court’s concise holding on
accrual and prescription (see SCA judgment PDF).

 Full citation / source —

Supreme Court of Appeal — Sanoj Jeewan v Transnet SOC Limited and Another (696/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 108. Source: SCA media release / judgment.
citeturn0search3turn0search7

---

5. Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police [2023] ZACC 35

 Facts —
The executrix of an estate sought to bring a malicious-prosecution claim after prior claims
(arrest/detention) had been litigated. The once-and-for-all rule was argued to bar a second distinct
action arising from the same factual matrix.

 Issue —

Whether the common-law "once-and-for-all" rule precludes a subsequent delictual claim

(malicious prosecution) when related proceedings (unlawful arrest/detention) have already been
pursued.

 Rule(s) —

The "once-and-for-all" rule—its scope and limits—and the distinction between separate causes of
action arising from a common factual foundation.

 Application / Analysis —

The Constitutional Court examined whether the later claim raised distinct legal wrongs that could
not have been litigated earlier and whether the earlier proceedings had resolved matters essential
to the second claim.

 Conclusion / Order —

The Court held that the lower courts misapplied the once-and-for-all rule and that the malicious-
prosecution claim was not necessarily barred; the appeal was upheld.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (verbatim) — see the Court’s concluding paragraph on the proper scope of
the once-and-for-all rule (official PDF / media summary).

 Full citation / source —

Constitutional Court — MC Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22) [2023] ZACC 35.
Source: Concourt/LawLibrary. citeturn3search12turn3search16

---

6. Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns and Another [2023] ZACC
46
 Facts —

Applicants sued the respondent for alleged misconduct related to auction/sale transactions, raising
complex questions about ostensible authority, contracts to negotiate in good faith, and
prescription. The SCA had earlier decided aspects of the dispute.

 Issue —
Whether the applicants’ claims were prescribed and how the term "debt" in the Prescription Act
should be interpreted in context; whether an oral agreement to negotiate in good faith founded a
debt for prescription purposes.

 Rule(s) —

Prescription Act interpretation (sections 10, 11, 12) and Constitutional interpretive obligations
under s 39(2). Contract principles on negotiation, ostensible authority and pleading requirements.

 Application / Analysis —

The Court applied a narrow, contextual interpretation of "debt" with constitutional considerations,
and assessed whether the pleaded cause of action fell within what the Act contemplates as a
"debt".

 Conclusion / Order —

The Constitutional Court held that the claim was not prescribed under the correct legal
interpretation and provided guidance on how to treat similar claims.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (verbatim) — see Court’s reasoning at the headnote and the key paragraphs
on interpreting "debt" (official PDF).

 Full citation / source —

Constitutional Court — Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns and Another (CCT
117/22) [2023] ZACC 46. Source: LawLibrary/Concourt. citeturn9view3turn3search17

---

7. L.M v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd (2021/46570) [2023]

ZAGPJHC 1125
 Facts —

Employee (L.M) brought an employment-related claim (constructive dismissal / sexual

harassment) with a complex procedural history including prior CCMA referral and delays. The
employer raised prescription as a defence.

 Issue —

When did the claimant’s cause of action accrue for prescription purposes: at the time of
resignation/constructive dismissal or later when internal/CCMA processes concluded?

 Rule(s) —

Prescription Act principles and labour-law nuances regarding referrals to CCMA/arbitration and
whether such referrals indicate election or interrupt prescription.
 Application / Analysis —

The Johannesburg High Court analysed when the claimant had knowledge of material facts and
whether earlier procedures constituted election preventing later civil claims; it applied Truter-
style analysis.

 Conclusion / Order —

The Court concluded the claim had prescribed as the claimant had constructive knowledge earlier
(see judgment for paragraph-level reasoning).

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

QUOTE UNAVAILABLE (official judgment available on SAFLII/LawLibrary; see citation

below).

 Full citation / source —

Gauteng Division, Johannesburg — L.M v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd
(2021/46570) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1125. Source: SAFLII / LawLibrary listing.
citeturn3search2turn3search6

---

8. Makunga v Indigo Spur (Barlequins Beleggings (Pty) Ltd t/a Indigo Spur)
(19733/2017) [2023] ZAWCHC 196
 Facts —

Plaintiff claimed breach of a contractual appointment; defendant raised prescription as a special

plea. The litigant (Makunga) represented himself and used internet/AI tools to prepare parts of his
case; the judge commented on this.

 Issue —

Whether the debt had prescribed and when prescription commenced (repudiation/election
analysis), plus issues about pleadings and use of AI-assisted heads of argument by litigants in
person.

 Rule(s) —

Prescription Act rules on accrual (repudiation vs election), and general civil procedure on
pleadings and representation.

 Application / Analysis —

The court examined dates of alleged repudiation, correspondence, and the plaintiff’s conduct; it
also commented on public access to legal research tools and the growing use of AI by litigants.

 Conclusion / Order —
The High Court dismissed the defendant’s special plea of prescription and allowed the merits to
proceed; the judge remarked on the role of AI in litigant-prepared documents.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (verbatim) — judge’s remark on “one day soon, the computers are coming
for our jobs” is quoted in coverage of the judgment (see Law Library / SAFLII judgment PDF).

 Full citation / source —

Western Cape Division — Makunga v Barlequins Beleggings t/a Indigo Spur (19733/2017)
[2023] ZAWCHC 196. Source: SAFLII / LawLibrary. citeturn3search3turn3search11

---

9. Trio Engineering Products Inc v Pilot Crushtec International (Pty) Ltd 2019 (3)
SA 580 (GJ)
 Facts —

Commercial dispute concerning distribution/exclusivity arrangements; issues arose about whether

contractual claims precluded concurrent delictual claims and counterclaims.

 Issue —

Whether a plaintiff with a contractual claim can also pursue a delictual claim for the same facts
(concurrence of liability in contract and delict), and how to distinguish duties arising from
contract and independent delictual duties.

 Rule(s) —

Principles on concurrent liability: established authorities on when a contractual relationship

excludes an independent delictual duty; close analysis of whether the wrong is contractual or
delictual in nature.

 Application / Analysis —

Unterhalter J (GJ) analysed the contractual terms and the factual matrix and concluded that the
existence of a contract does not automatically displace a delictual duty where a separate duty of
care exists; the decision carefully distinguishes prior authorities.

 Conclusion / Order —

Conclusion: the court permitted delictual analysis to survive alongside contractual claims where
appropriate and provided a nuanced approach for lower courts.

 Suggested quotation (verbatim) —

Suggested quotation (verbatim) — see the judgment itself (Gauteng Local Division report) for the
court’s carefully reasoned paragraph distinguishing contract and delict; citation below.
 Full citation / source —

Gauteng Local Division (High Court, Johannesburg) — Trio Engineered Products Inc v Pilot
Crushtec International (Pty) Ltd 2019 (3) SA 580 (GJ). Source: Gauteng judgments listing / case
report. citeturn4search8

---