Keyter N.O. v Keevy and Others (CA311/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 19 (8 March 2018)

Keyter N.O. v Keevy and Others (CA311/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 19 (8 March 2018)

The court held that the appellant's claim was not a rei vindicatio, as he was not the owner of the livestock; ownership had passed to the first respondent under the loan for consumption agreement. The appellant's right was personal, arising from the contract, and thus constituted a 'debt' under Chapter 3 of the Prescription Act. The claim had prescribed, and the appellant's arguments regarding interruption or impediment under section 13(1)(g) were not sustained by the facts. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was subject to prescription and had expired.

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 19
Parties
Appellant: Leon Keyter NO; Respondent: Neville William Keevy; Respondent: Andrew Stuart Paterson NO; Respondent: Marian Elaine van der Meulen NO; Respondent: Frederick Johannes Potgieter NO
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2018
Case Number
CA311/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Upholding Prescription Plea
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
JW Eksteen, FBA Dawood, TP Mageza
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Rei Vindicatio, Testamentary Trust, Loan for Consumption, Usufruct, Debate of Account
Civil Procedure Land and Property Prescription Act Rei Vindicatio Testamentary Trust Loan for Consumption Usufruct Debate of Account

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leon Keyter NO

Appellant

Neville William Keevy

Respondent

Andrew Stuart Paterson NO

Respondent

Marian Elaine van der Meulen NO

Respondent

Frederick Johannes Potgieter NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Upholding Prescription Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim for delivery and debatement of account is a 'debt' subject to prescription under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claim is properly characterised as a rei vindicatio or a personal right arising from a loan for consumption.
  3. 3 Whether the period of prescription had expired or was interrupted by the appellant's actions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's claim was not a rei vindicatio, as he was not the owner of the livestock; ownership had passed to the first respondent under the loan for consumption agreement. The appellant's right was personal, arising from the contract, and thus constituted a 'debt' under Chapter 3 of the Prescription Act. The claim had prescribed, and the appellant's arguments regarding interruption or impediment under section 13(1)(g) were not sustained by the facts. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was subject to prescription and had expired.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.