THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: 043/2005
Reportable
In the matter between
DR RENE TRUTER
First Appellant
DR JAN A VENTER
Second Appellant
and
MARTHINUS ALBERTUS DEYSEL
Respondent

Coram:
Harms, Zulman, Navsa, Mthiyane et Van Heerden JJA
Heard:
24 February 2006
Delivered:
17 March 2006
Summary:
Prescription Act 68 of 1969 - s 12(3) - commencement of
running of prescription in respect of claim for damages
for medical negligence – meaning of ‘knowledge of …the
facts from which the debt arises’ for purposes of s 12(3)
in the context of such a claim
Neutral citation: This judgment may be referred to as Truter v Deysel
[2006] SCA 17 (RSA)

JUDGMENT

VAN HEERDEN JA:

[1] In April 2000, the respondent, Mr Marthinus Albertus Deysel
instituted action in the Cape High Court against the appellants, Dr Rene
Truter and Dr Jan Venter for damages arising from a personal injury
allegedly sustained by him as a result of a series of medical and surgical
procedures performed on him by Drs Truter and Venter in the period July
1993 to September 1993. Drs Truter and Venter raised a special plea of
prescription which was, in terms of Uniform rule 33(4), set down for
separate adjudication. The High Court (Mlonzi AJ) dismissed the special
plea with costs on 2 November 2004. The present appeal against this order
is with the leave the High Court.
[2] The sole issue before the trial court, and indeed also before this
court, concerns the time at which prescription started to run in respect of
Deysel’s claim for damages against Drs Truter and Venter. In terms of
s  11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 (‘the Act’), this claim is subject
to a three-year extinctive prescription period. According to the special plea,
Deysel’s summons was served on Drs Truter and Venter on 17 April 2000.
Thus, if the date on which the three-year prescription period commenced
running was before 17 April 1997, then any claim which Deysel may have
had would have become prescribed and the special plea should have been
upheld.

[3] For purposes of the adjudication of the special plea, the facts
averred in Deysel’s particulars of claim, as amplified by his trial
particulars, were taken to be admitted. The six operations which gave rise
to Deysel’s claim were the following:
DATE
OPERATION
PERFORMED BY
5 July 1993
Extra-capsular cataract
extraction and posterior
lens implantation
Dr Truter
15 July 1993
Emergency irridectomy to
correct iris prolapse
Dr Truter
5 August 1993
Irrigation of residual lens
material
Dr Truter
25 August 1993
Posterior laser capsulotomy Dr Truter
7 September 1993
Anterior vitrectomy and
Removal of lens material
Dr Venter
± 21 September 1993
Insertion of new intra-
ocular lens
Dr Venter

[4] It was also alleged and, for the purposes of the special plea only,
was common cause, that the foreseeable and actual consequence of these
procedures performed by Drs Truter and Venter were decompensation of the
cornea of Deysel’s right eye, necessitating a corneal graft operation which
was performed by a Dr Burger on 12 December 1996. This, in turn,
developed complications involving the onset of infection of a corneal stitch
and ultimately led to an evisceration of Deysel’s right eye on 23 April 1997.

As Deysel had, at the time of the operations in 1993, already lost his left eye,
he was thus rendered totally blind.
[5] It should be noted that, in his trial particulars, Deysel made the
following allegations (which were admitted for the purposes of the special
plea):
‘Throughout all the surgical procedures, the Defendants [Drs Truter and Venter] could
and should have known that repeated surgery irreparably damages the endolethial cells
lining the cornea, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that it could and probably
would lead to bullous kerotopathy. It was further reasonably foreseeable that this would
in turn require a corneal graft and, if not uncomplicated, eventual loss of the eye if an
infection were to set in.’
[6] As early as 27 July 1994, Deysel wrote to the Medical and Dental
Council (‘the Council’), lodging a complaint against Dr Truter. In this
letter, he recounted the operations performed upon him by Drs Truter and
Venter, complained of the conduct of Dr Truter and asked the Council to
investigate the matter ‘as I feel there was no need for five operations plus
all the pain and suffering and unnecessary sums of money for one
cataract’. He also mentioned that, according to a Dr Mouton, who had
given him an opinion of the condition of his eye at the request of a Dr
Claassen, under whose care he had been placed, there was ‘permanent
damage to the eye’.

[7] After asking for and receiving from Dr Truter her account of how
she had treated Deysel, the Council responded to Deysel in writing on 20
July 1995, attaching a copy of Dr Truter’s explanation, and stating that –
‘After careful consideration the Committee is of the opinion that there has not been
conduct which can be said to have been improper or disgraceful, and resolved that no
further action be taken’.
[8] In 1995, Deysel appointed attorneys Malcolm Lyons Munro and
Sohn to investigate and prosecute a malpractice claim against Drs Truter
and Venter arising from their treatment of him in 1993. These attorneys
obtained professional reports from two experts in the field of
ophthalmology, namely Professor Murray, the Head of the Department of
Ophthalmology of the University of Cape Town, and Dr Sacks, an
ophthalmic surgeon. Both these experts were provided with all the relevant
medical records and other documents, including Deysel’s letter of
complaint to the Council; Dr Truter’s report to the Council; the Council’s
response to Deysel; Dr Truter’s and Dr Venter’s clinical notes and a
medical report dated 9 November 1994 by a Dr Kruger, another ophthalmic
surgeon whom Deysel had consulted for a second opinion. In addition, Dr
Sacks was provided with a letter dated 16 October 1995 by the
abovementioned Dr Claassen, also an ophthalmologist, who had treated
Deysel’s right eye on various occasions from late 1993 to July 1995, setting

out the detail of his findings in respect of Deysel’s right eye. None of these
medical experts concluded that an inference of negligence on the part of
Drs Truter and Venter was justified. Apart from Drs Kruger and Claassen,
Deysel was referred to yet another eye specialist, a Dr Mouton, in June
1994. This doctor ascribed the reduction in Deysel’s visual acuity to
‘previous chronic macular oedema’. A fourth expert consulted by Deysel in
February 1996, a Dr Woods, concluded that ‘he had reduced vision
probably due to changes in the cornea’ and that ‘it appeared from my initial
assessments that nothing could be done to improve his vision’.
[9] After Deysel’s right eye had been removed by Dr Burger in April
1997, he made further complaints about Drs Truter and Venter to, inter
alia, the Council and the MEC for Health in the Western Cape. New
attorneys appointed by him in 1998, D Butlion and Associates, obtained a
further medico-legal report, this time from a Professor Stulting, the Head
of the Department of Ophthalmology of the University of the Orange Free
State, who was provided with the same documentation previously
submitted to the other experts. Professor Stulting’s very detailed report,
dated 7 June 1999, concluded as follows:
‘it is my humble and honest opinion that Mr Deysel will not be able to prove that the
conduct of any of the abovementioned doctors, namely, Dr Truter, Prof Venter or Dr
Burger, fell short of the standard of care expected from a medical expert, such as an

ophthalmologist, and that such negligent conduct caused the loss of Mr Deysel’s right
eye.’
[10] According to evidence given by a Ms Pienaar, who was at the
relevant time employed by firm of attorneys who ultimately took over
Deysel’s matter, Deysel told her in late 1999 about a certain Dr Lecuana,
an ophthalmologist at the University of Cape Town, whom he had heard
(and to whom he had spoken about his problems) on a radio talk show. In
early 2000, Ms Pienaar consulted with Dr Lecuana, who in turn referred
her to a Dr Steven. Ms Pienaar’s evidence makes it clear that the same set
of facts and documents which had been presented to the experts previously
consulted were presented to Drs Lecuana and Steven. However, Dr Steven
had expressed the view that the operations performed by Dr Truter and
Venter had been done too quickly one after the other, without giving the
cornea time to clear and heal, and that this constituted negligence on the
part of the said doctors. As Ms Pienaar put it, ‘that was the first positive
expert report that I could obtain’, and it was on the basis of this report that
summons was issued on behalf of Deysel in April 2000.
[11] The relevant section of the Act (s 12) reads as follows:
‘When prescription begins to run
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), prescription shall
commence to run as soon as the debt is due.

(2) If the debtor wilfully prevents the creditor from coming to know of the existence
of the debt, prescription shall not commence to run until the creditor becomes
aware of the existence of the debt.
(3) A debt shall not be deemed to be due until the creditor has knowledge of the
identity of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises: Provided that a
creditor shall be deemed to have such knowledge if he could have acquired it by
exercising reasonable care.’
(Emphasis added.)
[12] There is no suggestion that Drs Truter and Venter prevented
Deysel ‘from coming to know of the existence of the debt’ (s 12(2)) and
Deysel certainly knew ‘the identity of the debtor(s)’ from the outset. The
crisp question before the court a quo was thus whether Deysel had actual or
deemed knowledge of ‘the facts from which the debt arises’, as required by
s 12(3), prior to 17 April 1997.
[13] In the High Court (and on appeal before us), counsel for Deysel
contended that, in the context of a medical negligence claim, the meaning
of the phrase ‘knowledge…of the facts from which the debt arises’ includes
knowledge of facts showing that the defendant, in treating the plaintiff,
failed to adhere to the standards of skill and diligence expected of a
practitioner in the former’s position. Thus, it was submitted, until the
plaintiff has sufficient detail – frequently, if not invariably, in the form of

an expert medical opinion – showing that the defendant failed to exhibit the
necessary degree of diligence, skill and care and in what respects he or she
failed to do so, the plaintiff does not, in terms of s 12(3), have ‘knowledge
of the facts from which the debt arises’.
[14] Applied to the facts of this case, Deysel’s counsel argued that the
first time that Deysel or his legal representatives were made aware that the
known facts (the conduct of Drs Truter and Venter) constituted negligence
was when Dr Steven gave advice to that effect to Ms Pienaar shortly before
the issue of summons. There was no evidence to suggest that Deysel had
been dilatory in not consulting with Dr Steven at an earlier stage or that he
had acted unreasonably in endeavouring to obtain assistance from the
various other sources set out above. Thus, the argument continued,
prescription did not start to run in respect of Deysel’s alleged claim until
such time as Dr Steven’s opinion was obtained and the special plea had no
merit.
[15] The High Court upheld this contention, stating:
‘It is not legally conceivable how a malpractice case will see its day in a South African
court of law without the litigant obtaining knowledge of [a] medical expert that indeed
the symptoms complained about or the resultant consequence is indicative of some
degree of incompetence or negligence constituting the wrongful act.’

Mlonzi AJ thus held that, because Deysel had only received a favourable
expert medical opinion in 2000, prescription only commenced running at
that stage.
[16] I am of the view that the High Court erred in this finding. For the
purposes of the Act, the term ‘debt due’ means a debt, including a delictual
debt, which is owing and payable. A debt is due in this sense when the
creditor acquires a complete cause of action for the recovery of the debt,
that is, when the entire set of facts which the creditor must prove in order to
succeed with his or her claim against the debtor is in place or, in other
words, when everything has happened which would entitle the creditor to
institute action and to pursue his or her claim.1
[17] In a delictual claim, the requirements of fault and unlawfulness do
not constitute factual ingredients of the cause of action, but are legal
conclusions to be drawn from the facts:
‘A cause of action means the combination of facts that are material for the plaintiff to
prove in order to succeed with his action. Such facts must enable a court to arrive at
certain legal conclusions regarding unlawfulness and fault, the constituent elements of a

1 See, for example, Evins v Shields Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (A) at 838D-H and Deloitte
Haskins & Sells Consultants (Pty) Ltd v Bowthorpe Hellerman Deutsch (Pty) Ltd 1991 (1) SA 525 (A) at
532H-I. See further MM Loubser Extinctive Prescription (1996) para 4.6.2 at pp 80-81 and the other
authorities there cited.

delictual cause of action being a combination of factual and legal conclusions, namely
a causative act, harm, unlawfulness and culpability or fault.’2
(Emphasis added.)
[18] In the words of this court in Van Staden v Fourie:3
‘Artikel 12(3) van die Verjaringswet stel egter nie die aanvang van verjaring uit totdat
die skuldeiser die volle omvang van sy regte uitgevind het nie. Die toegewing wat die
Verjaringswet in hierdie verband maak, is beperk tot kennis van “die feite waaruit die
skuld ontstaan”.’
[19] ‘Cause of action’ for the purposes of prescription thus means –
‘…every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in
order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece
of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to
be proved.’4
[20] As contended by counsel for Drs Truter and Venter, an expert
opinion that a conclusion of negligence can be drawn from a particular set
of facts is not itself a fact, but rather evidence. As indicated above, the

2 Loubser op cit para 4.6.1 at p 80 and the authorities there cited, in particular Evins v Shield Insurance
Co Ltd at 838H-839A.
3 1989 (3) SA 200 (A) at 216D-E (per EM Grosskopf JA), cited with approval by Harms JA (with whom
Scott  JA concurred), in the context of a special plea of prescription raised against a claim for damages for
professional negligence, in Drennan Maud & Partners v Pennington Town Board 1998 (3) SA 200 (SCA)
at 213C.
4 Per Maasdorp JA in McKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16 at 23, cited
with approval by Corbett JA in the Evins case at 838D-F.

presence or absence of negligence is not a fact; it is a conclusion of law to
be drawn by the court in all the circumstances of the specific case.5 Section
12(3) of the Act requires knowledge only of the material facts from which
the debt arises for the prescriptive period to begin running – it does not
require knowledge of the relevant legal conclusions (ie that the known facts
constitute negligence) or of the existence of an expert opinion which
supports such conclusions.
[21] Mlonzi AJ appears to have relied on the judgment of this court in
the recent case of Van Zijl v Hoogenhout 6  for her conclusion that
knowledge of fault is a requirement for the commencement of the running
of prescription. In my view, she erred in so doing. The Van Zijl case is
entirely distinguishable from the present case. In the Van Zijl case, Heher
JA held that, where the prescription statute speaks of prescription
beginning to run when a creditor has knowledge, ‘it presupposes a creditor
who is capable of appreciating that a wrong has been done to him or her by
another’.7 The plaintiff in the Van Zijl case was found on the facts to have
lacked capacity for many years to appreciate that a wrong had been done to
her and that this had therefore delayed the commencement of the running

5 See, for example, Mkhatswa v Minister of Defence 2000 (1) SA 1104 (SCA) para 23 at 1112H.
6 [2004] 4 All SA 427 (SCA).
7 Para 19.

of prescription.8 By contrast, in the present case, it is abundantly clear that
Deysel believed and appreciated from as early as 1994 that a wrong had
been done to him by Drs Truter and Venter.9
[22] In accordance with the so-called ‘once and for all’ rule, a plaintiff
must claim in one action all damages, both already sustained and
prospective, flowing from one cause of action. Therefore, a plaintiff’s
cause of action is complete as soon as some damage is suffered, not only in
respect of the loss already sustained by him or her, but also in respect of all
loss sustained later.10
[23] Applied to the facts of this case, Deysel’s cause of action was
complete and the debt of Drs Truter and Venter became due as soon as the
first known harm was sustained by Deysel, notwithstanding the fact that the
loss of his right eye occurred later.
[24] According to Deysel’s own evidence, from at least the time of his
initial complaint to the Council in July 1994, he knew the details of the
operations performed on him by Drs Truter and Venter and that he had

8 Para 44.
9 It is perhaps also necessary to point out that the High Court apparently misconstrued the relevant
passage from the majority judgment in the Drennan Maud case as providing authority for the proposition
that ‘knowledge of fault was considered as the required knowledge in a professional negligence case’. As
submitted by counsel for Drs Truter and Venter, the phrase ‘design fault’ used by Olivier JA (at 205E-F)
was plainly a reference to a defect in the design, not to fault in the sense of culpability.
10 See Evins v Shield Insurance at 836A-B and Drennan Maud & Partners v Pennington Town Board at
211F-G. See also Loubser op cit para 4.6.2 at 81ff.

suffered harm. He also knew that the two doctors were required to exercise
reasonable care and skill in treating him; indeed his unremitting and oft-
repeated complaint was that they had failed to do so, as a result of which he
had undergone a multiplicity of medical and surgical procedures and had
suffered permanent damage to his remaining eye. He knew that he had a
potential claim against Drs Truter and Venter, hence his instructions to the
first set of attorneys in 1995 to investigate such a claim.
[25] As is clear from the sequence of events described above, all the
facts and information in respect of the operations performed on Deysel by
Drs Truter and Venter in 1993 were known, or readily accessible, to him
and his legal representatives as early as 1994 or 1995. Neither Deysel nor
Ms Pienaar was able to point to any new fact which was given to either
Dr  Lecuana or Dr Steven which had not been presented to the previous
medical experts for their opinions and which had not been known or readily
accessible to Deysel and his representatives before 17 April 1997 (ie more
than 3 years before the date on which he instituted action). Indeed, the
‘negative indicators’ which apparently eventually led Dr Steven to
conclude that there had been negligence on the part of Drs Truter and
Venter were dealt with in the reports of medical experts previously
consulted.

[26] Thus, neither Dr Lecuana nor Dr Steven revealed or furnished any
new facts to Deysel: they merely advanced an opinion, in the form of a
conclusion that there had been negligence, which opinion was based on the
same facts which had been available prior to 17 April 1997 and which had
been furnished to the other experts.
[27] Lastly, insofar as the court a quo relied on English medical-
negligence case law as an aid to the interpretation of the knowledge
requirement in s 12(3) of the Act, I am of the view that it was incorrect in
doing so. Not only do the English cases concern the interpretation and
application of the English Limitation Act of 1980, which differs
materially from the South African Act in both content and origin, but such
cases are also, as illustrated convincingly by counsel for Drs Truter and
Venter, eminently distinguishable on their facts from the present case and
are, in addition, not necessarily consistent. Counsel for Deysel tried to
persuade us otherwise, but to no avail.
[28] It follows that the appeal must succeed.
[29] The following order is made:
(a)
The appeal is upheld with costs.

(b)
The order of the Cape High Court is set aside and replaced
with the following order:
‘The special plea of prescription is upheld and the
plaintiff’s action is dismissed with costs’.

B J VAN HEERDEN
JUDGE OF APPEAL
CONCUR:
Harms JA
Zulman JA
Navsa JA
Mthiyane JA
In the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:  The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:    17 March 2006
Status: Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal

DR R TRUTER and DR J VENTER v M A DEYSEL

The Supreme Court of Appeal today upheld the appeal of Drs R Truter and J Venter against a judgment of
the Cape High Court which had dismissed a special plea of prescription raised by the two doctors in an
action instituted against them by Mr M A Deysel for damages arising from a personal injury allegedly
sustained by him as a result of a series of medical and surgical procedures performed on him by them
during 1993.

The sole issue before the Cape High Court and before the SCA concerned the time at which prescription
started to run in respect of Deysel’s claim against Drs Truter and Venter. In terms of s 11(d) of the
Prescription Act of 1969 (the Act), his claim would prescribe after three years. Deysel’s summons was
served on Drs Truter and Venter on 17 April 2000. Thus, if the date on which the three-year period started
running was before 17 April 1997, then any claim which Deysel may have had would have been
extinguished by prescription and the special plea should have been upheld.

During the period July to August 1993, Dr Truter had performed four different ophthalmologic procedures on
Deysel’s right eye, starting with a cataract operation. Thereafter, during September 1993, Dr Venter had
performed two further ophthalmologic procedures on the same eye. For the purposes of deciding the special
plea only, the parties agreed that the foreseeable and actual consequence of these six procedures were
decompensation of the cornea, necessitating a corneal graft operation which was performed by a Dr Burger
in December 1996. This, turn, developed complications and ultimately led to the removal of Deysel’s right
eye by Dr Burger in April 1997. As Deysel had, at the time of the procedures in 1993, already lost his left
eye, he was thus rendered totally blind.

As early as July 1994, Deysel wrote to the Medical and Dental Council, lodging a detailed complaint against
Dr Truter and asking the Council to investigate the matter. He mentioned in the letter that, according to a Dr
Mouton, who had given him an opinion of the condition of his eye, there was ‘permanent damage to the eye’.
After asking for and receiving from Dr Truter her account of how she had treated Deysel, the Council

informed Deysel in writing that it was of the opinion that Dr Truter was not guilty of any improper or
disgraceful conduct. During the period from 1995 to late 1999, Deysel appointed three different firms of
attorneys, one after the other, to investigate and prosecute a medical malpractice claim against Dr Truter
and Venter. These firms of attorneys obtained professional reports from three experts in the field of
ophthalmology. In addition, Deysel also consulted four other eye specialists about the condition of his eye.
All these experts were provided with all the relevant medical records and other documents, including
Deysel’s letter of complaint to the Council and the Council’s response. None of the medical experts
concluded that an inference of negligence on the part of Drs Truter and Venter was justified. Eventually, in
early 2000, Deysel’s ‘new’ firm of attorneys consulted with a Dr Steven, who expressed the view that the
operations performed by Drs Truter and Venter had been done one after the other, without giving the cornea
time to clear and heal, and that this constituted negligence on the part of the said doctors. This was the first
‘positive’ expert report that had been obtained and it was on the basis of this report that Deysel’s summons
was issued in April 2000.

Deysel’s claim against the two doctors would have prescribed if he had have actual or deemed knowledge of
‘the facts from which the debt arises’, in terms of s 12(3) of the Act, prior to 17 April 1997. The High Court
concluded that the first time that Deysel or his legal representatives were made aware that the known facts
(the conduct of Drs Truter and Venter) constituted negligence was when Dr Steven expressed this view
shortly before the issue of summons. Thus, the court held, prescription did not start to run until such time as
Dr Steven’s favourable medical opinion was obtained and the special plea had no merit.

The SCA disagreed. It pointed out that, for the purposes of the Act, a debt is due when the creditor acquires
a complete cause of action for the recovery of the debt, ie the entire set of facts which the creditor must
prove in order to succeed with his or claim against the debtor. In a delictual claim, the presence or absence
of negligence is not a fact; it is a conclusion of law to be drawn by the court in all the circumstances of the
specific case. An expert opinion that a conclusion of negligence can be drawn from a particular set of facts is
not itself a fact, but rather evidence. Furthermore, a plaintiff has to claim in one action all damages, both
already suffered and prospective, flowing from one cause of action. In this case, Deysel’s cause of action
was complete and the debt of Drs Truter and Venter became due as soon as the first known harm was
suffered by Deysel, even though the loss of his eye occurred later.

The SCA concluded that all the facts and information in respect of the operations performed on Deysel by
Drs Truter and Venter were known, or readily accessible, to him and his legal representatives as early as
1994 or 1995. There was no new fact which was given to Dr Steven in 2000 which had not been presented
to the previous medical experts for their opinions. Therefore, prescription of Deysel’s claim had started to run
before 17 April 1997 (ie more than three years before the date on which Deysel instituted action). It followed
that Deysel’s claim against Drs Truter and Venter had been extinguished by prescription. The Cape High
Court should have upheld the doctors’ special plea and dismissed Deysel’s action.