SCA resets prescription clock on builder warranty claims; draft EE Code opens for comment

Government Gazette 55046 carries three items requiring prompt action. GN 7719 publishes the Draft Reviewed Code of Good Practice on the Preparation and Implementation of Employment Equity Plans for 60 days' public comment, aligning with the Employment Equity Amendment Act 2022 and requiring designated employers (50+ employees) to comply with sector-specific numerical EE targets set under s 15A(3). GN 7720 compels pharmaceutical manufacturers, importers, and stakeholders to submit market data within three months for the Department of Health's review of the Schedule 0 medicines exemption from transparent pricing regulations. Board Notice 963 publishes the cidb Standard for Uniformity in Construction Procurement 2026 (second edition) for public comment, governing all public-sector construction procurement.

A housing consumer sued an NHBRC-registered home builder for damages arising from major structural defects in a residential property, relying on the builder's statutory warranty under s 13(2)(b)(i) of the Housing Consumers Protection (Measures) Act. The builder raised a prescription defence, arguing the claim had prescribed because the consumer became aware of the defects more than three years before issuing summons. The full court below upheld the prescription plea. The builder was still actively attempting repairs as late as October 2018.

The court held: The SCA held that prescription runs only when the housing consumer knows three minimum facts: (1) that there are major structural defects caused by non-compliance with NHBRC Technical Requirements, (2) that the builder was notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to repair, and (3) that the builder has failed or refused to repair at its own cost. Mere awareness of defects is not knowledge of a legally enforceable claim. The court further held that s 16(1) of the Prescription Act does not apply because s 13(2)(b)(i) prescribes a warranty period, not a time-bar for litigation. The full court's order was set aside and the matter remitted for trial on the merits.

Legal impact: This judgment develops the law by drawing a clear distinction between knowledge of defects (which triggers the notification obligation) and knowledge that the warranty has been breached (which triggers prescription). It materially extends the effective window within which housing consumers can sue builders, because prescription cannot begin while the builder is still attempting repairs. For builders, prescription defences in warranty disputes will now be harder to sustain where there is any evidence of ongoing repair engagement. The ruling applies to all NHBRC-registered building disputes involving the s 13(2)(b)(i) warranty.