Keyter v Keevy and Others (1658/2006) [2017] ZAECGHC 41 (22 March 2017)

Keyter v Keevy and Others (1658/2006) [2017] ZAECGHC 41 (22 March 2017)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the third defendants became due on 29 June 2003, when Hazel Keevy died and the usufruct and lease terminated. The three-year prescription period expired on 28 June 2006. The filing of a claim against John Keevy's estate in July 2009 did not interrupt or delay prescription, as the claim had already prescribed by then. Section 13(1)(g) of the Prescription Act was found to be inapplicable because the debt had prescribed before the claim was filed against the estate. The court further found that, even if the plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the whereabouts of the livestock, he is deemed to have had such knowledge by the exercise of...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Leon Keyter; Defendant: Neville William Keevy; Defendant: Andrew Stuart Paterson N.O.; Defendant: Marian Elaine van der Meulen N.O.; Defendant: Frederick Johannes Potgieter N.O.
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2017
Case Number
1658/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment / Trial Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
The third defendants' special plea of prescription against the plaintiff's claim is upheld, with costs.
Judges
G H Bloem
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea of Prescription, Estate Administration, Usufruct, Vindicatory Claim
Civil Procedure Land and Property Prescription Act Special Plea of Prescription Estate Administration Usufruct Vindicatory Claim

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leon Keyter

Plaintiff

Neville William Keevy

Defendant

Andrew Stuart Paterson N.O.

Defendant

Marian Elaine van der Meulen N.O.

Defendant

Frederick Johannes Potgieter N.O.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment / Trial Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the third defendants has become prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the running of prescription was interrupted by the filing of a claim against John Keevy's estate.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had or is deemed to have had knowledge of the facts necessary for prescription to commence running.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the third defendants became due on 29 June 2003, when Hazel Keevy died and the usufruct and lease terminated. The three-year prescription period expired on 28 June 2006. The filing of a claim against John Keevy's estate in July 2009 did not interrupt or delay prescription, as the claim had already prescribed by then. Section 13(1)(g) of the Prescription Act was found to be inapplicable because the debt had prescribed before the claim was filed against the estate. The court further found that, even if the plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the whereabouts of the livestock, he is deemed to have had such knowledge by the exercise of...

Court Disposition

The third defendants' special plea of prescription against the plaintiff's claim is upheld, with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription raised by the third defendants is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's claim against the third defendants is dismissed.