{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff's claim has prescribed in terms of the Prescription Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Debt became due in 2011, summons served in 2016"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff's declaration discloses a cause of action","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Declaration based on both breach of contract and unjust enrichment"}
{"issue_text":"Whether unjust enrichment has been properly pleaded","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Claim based on both contract and unjust enrichment without alternative pleading"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for $54,000 based on unjust enrichment, alleging they purchased 2,700 shared phone sim cards in 2008 under a verbal agreement with the defendant, who later converted them to buddie lines without compensation. The defendant raised prescription as a defence, arguing the claim became due in 2011 but summons were only served in 2016.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases