Claasen v Bester (872/10) [2011] ZASCA 197; 2012 (2) SA 404 (SCA) (23 November 2011)

Claasen v Bester (872/10) [2011] ZASCA 197; 2012 (2) SA 404 (SCA) (23 November 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription began to run on 3 March 2004, when Bester became aware that the deed of sale did not contain a determinable price for the buy-back right. The court found that ignorance of the legal consequences of this omission did not delay the running of prescription, as section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires only knowledge of the material facts, not legal conclusions. Attempts to register the special conditions and any alleged acknowledgment by Claasen did not interrupt prescription, as there was no debt to acknowledge. Consequently, Bester's claim had prescribed by the time summons was issued on 14 December 2007, and the appeal succeeded.

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 197
Parties
Appellant: Evert Bakkes Claasen; Respondent: Michiel Daniël Bester
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2011
Case Number
872/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Free State High Court, Prescription Special Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Harms, Lewis, Shongwe, Majiedt, Plasket
Legal Topics
Extinctive Prescription, Prescription Act Section 12, Alienation of Land Act, Contract Nullity, Special Plea of Prescription
Civil Procedure Extinctive Prescription Prescription Act Section 12 Alienation of Land Act Contract Nullity Special Plea of Prescription

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evert Bakkes Claasen

Appellant

Michiel Daniël Bester

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Free State High Court, Prescription Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ignorance of a legal conclusion (unenforceability of a contract term) constitutes ignorance of a 'fact' for the purposes of section 12(3) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When did prescription begin to run in respect of the respondent's claim for restitution of the property?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription began to run on 3 March 2004, when Bester became aware that the deed of sale did not contain a determinable price for the buy-back right. The court found that ignorance of the legal consequences of this omission did not delay the running of prescription, as section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires only knowledge of the material facts, not legal conclusions. Attempts to register the special conditions and any alleged acknowledgment by Claasen did not interrupt prescription, as there was no debt to acknowledge. Consequently, Bester's claim had prescribed by the time summons was issued on 14 December 2007, and the appeal succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant’s special plea of prescription is upheld.
  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, with costs.