The High Court in KwaZulu-Natal has dismissed a R5-million damages claim brought by a former Road Accident Fund (RAF) beneficiary against his former lawyer, ruling that the case had long prescribed.
The case, heard before Judge PC Bezuidenhout in the Pietermaritzburg High Court, involved Stanguous Mzonzima Mncwabe, who accused S.S. Nqayi Attorneys of negligence and professional misconduct in the handling of his RAF claim stemming from a 2011 accident that led to the amputation of his right leg.
Mncwabe alleged that his attorney, Mr. S.S. Nqayi, failed to act in his best interests when he settled the RAF claim for R750,000 in November 2013. He said the amount was inadequate and excluded a claim for loss of income. He argued that he only realised in 2022, after consulting new lawyers. That was when he found out that Nqayi may have mishandled his case, prompting him to sue for R5-million in damages.
Was desperate for available cash
However, the court sided with Nqayi, who maintained that he had acted strictly on his client’s instructions. According to Nqayi, Mncwabe was adamant that he wanted his case finalised quickly. He refused to undergo further medical assessments needed to substantiate a larger claim.
“Plaintiff was informed that if he accepted any offer then he would not have any future claim for loss of income. But he was adamant that the matter had to be settled,” Nqayi testified. He further stated that Mncwabe signed all settlement documents and collected his cheque in person on November 15 2013.
Judge Bezuidenhout found that Mncwabe was aware of the facts underlying his complaint as early as 2014. This was when he returned to Nqayi’s office to dispute the amount he had received.
Claimant was aware of implications
“He was thus aware that if there was any irregularity or any fact with which he was not satisfied, he had to take action against the defendant,” the judgment reads.
The court emphasised that under Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, prescription begins when a claimant knows the facts giving rise to a debt. Not when they later realise the legal implications. The judge cited Claasen v Bester and Truter v Deysel, rulings that established that “knowledge of legal conclusions is not required before prescription begins to run”.
Mncwabe had known of the settlement and his dissatisfaction since 2014. As a result, the court concluded that the three-year prescription period had expired by 2017 or 2018.
“The plaintiff’s version is improbable,” Judge Bezuidenhout said.
“It appears that at the time he accepted the offer as he wanted the money. But in later years he decided that he wanted more. And he was of the view that he could then obtain more.”
The court therefore ruled that Mncwabe’s claim had prescribed. It dismissed the matter with costs, bringing the decade-long dispute to a close.
