In a January 2025 judgment, the High Court dealt with the issue of professional negligence and prescription in case which revolved around a claim for damages by the claimant, who alleged that the defendant, a firm of attorneys, was negligent in handling her claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF), resulting in an under-settlement of her claim.
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 28 June 2005 and sustained serious injuries. She engaged the defendant to represent her in her claim against the RAF. The defendant instituted a claim for damages amounting to R517,076.00. The claimant’s claim was settled on 15 October 2011 for an amount of R218,775.90. The claimant later alleged that the settlement was inadequate, and that the defendant had been negligent in advising her to accept the offer without obtaining further medical assessments.
The primary legal issues in this case were whether the defendant breached its mandate by negligently advising the claimant to accept the settlement offer, and whether the claimant’s claim against the defendant had prescribed. The court had to determine if the defendant’s actions constituted professional negligence and if the claimant’s claim was time-barred under the Prescription Act.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the testimonies of the claimant and the defendant. The claimant claimed that further medical assessments, would have led to a higher settlement. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the claimant was advised to undergo further assessments but refused to do so, insisting on accepting the settlement offer.
The court found that the defendant had indeed advised the claimant to undergo further medical assessments, as evidenced by a letter sent to the claimant and a follow-up conversation. The court noted that the claimant’s refusal to undergo further assessments and her insistence on accepting the settlement offer were the primary reasons for the under-settlement of her claim. The court also found inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony, which undermined her credibility.
Regarding the issue of prescription, the Prescription Act stipulates that a debt prescribes after three years unless interrupted. The court determined that the claimant was aware of the under-settlement at the time she accepted the settlement offer in 2011. Since the claimant only instituted the action against the defendant in 2015, the claim had prescribed.
The court dismissed the claimant’s claim for damages, finding that the defendant was not negligent in handling her RAF claim and that the claimant’s claim had prescribed.
Mokalapa v Ramushu Mashile Twala Inc (83874/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 40 (20 January 2025)