Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in civil procedure and medical malpractice.

It appeared that, although the procedures had been performed on the plaintiff in 1993, it was only in early 2000 that he managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had conducted themselves negligently; for that reason, that summons was issued only in April 2000.

The High Court dismissed the special plea, finding that the period of prescription had commenced running only when the plaintiff had managed to secure medical opinion to the effect that the defendants had been negligent.

[2] The court found that, in a delictual claim, the requirements of fault and unlawfulness were not factual ingredients of the cause of action; they were, rather, legal conclusions to be drawn from the facts.

[7] The court found that all of the facts and information in respect of the operations performed on the plaintiff by the defendants had been known, or had been readily accessible, to him and his legal representatives as early as 1994 or 1995.