Lavers v Hein & Far BK (240/96) [1998] ZASCA 19; 1998 (3) SA 195 (SCA); (25 March 1998)

Lavers v Hein & Far BK (240/96) [1998] ZASCA 19; 1998 (3) SA 195 (SCA); (25 March 1998)

The court held that prescription began to run when the respondent received the police letter dated 30 November 1988, which clearly stated that the vehicle had been identified as stolen and would not be returned to him. The respondent's attorney was obliged to concede that prescription commenced at that point. The court further found that none of the correspondence exchanged between the parties' attorneys after the seizure of the vehicle contained any acknowledgment of liability by the appellant. Therefore, prescription was not interrupted under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. The respondent's claim was accordingly prescribed.

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 19
Parties
Appellant: Lavers; Respondent: Hein & Far BK
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 1998
Case Number
240/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Lower Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hefer, Eksteen, Howie, Schutz
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Commencement of Prescription, Acknowledgment of Liability
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Commencement of Prescription Acknowledgment of Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lavers

Appellant

Hein & Far BK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Lower Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did prescription begin to run in respect of the respondent's claim for the return of the vehicle or its value.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to interrupt prescription under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that prescription began to run when the respondent received the police letter dated 30 November 1988, which clearly stated that the vehicle had been identified as stolen and would not be returned to him. The respondent's attorney was obliged to concede that prescription commenced at that point. The court further found that none of the correspondence exchanged between the parties' attorneys after the seizure of the vehicle contained any acknowledgment of liability by the appellant. Therefore, prescription was not interrupted under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. The respondent's claim was accordingly prescribed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defence of prescription is upheld.
  • The respondent's claim is dismissed with costs.