The University of South Africa (Unisa) has lost a bid to halt the release of more than R10.2-million arising from a debt it claimed had prescribed.
The money, which was locked up in a trust account, is linked to payments dating back to 2008.
This week, Pretoria High Court Judge Anthony Millar ruled against the university, dealing a blow to its efforts to block the disputed payments.
In the matter, which was heard on October 22 in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Unisa sought an interdict against Alberts Attorneys and several other respondents to prevent the distribution of R10,243,354.60.
The money had been attached following a default judgment granted on October 16, 2023.
Unisa argued that the judgment was wrongly obtained, claiming it would have raised a special plea of prescription, as the original debt stemmed from a contract signed more than three years before the summons was issued.
However, Judge Millar dismissed this argument, explaining that the Prescription Act requires the defence to be actively raised by the party involved, and Unisa’s failure to do so at the time undermined its position.
“There is no merit in the argument that the judgment was erroneously sought or granted. Save for the reference to the date, Unisa has pointed to no other basis upon which the grant of the default judgment should have been refused,” he said.
The court also found Unisa’s explanation for its default unconvincing. Initially, Unisa claimed the summons had only been handled by a former employee, Tumisang Moremane, who left without informing anyone of the case.
However, court records showed that another legal adviser, Puleng Ringane, also received the summons but failed to act.
Millar concluded that Unisa had no clear right to the funds, making its application for an interdict baseless. He noted its claim of potential harm was speculative and unsupported.
“It is insufficient to simply make allegations; these must be substantiated.”
The court ordered Unisa to pay the legal costs on a party-and-party scale, including senior counsel fees, citing the matter’s importance and complexity.
