Mapheto v Mamabolo and Others (535/2019) [2019] ZALMPPHC 63 (12 December 2019)

Mapheto v Mamabolo and Others (535/2019) [2019] ZALMPPHC 63 (12 December 2019)

The court found that the applicant had actual knowledge of the disappearance of the truck and the identity of the responsible party (SAPS Midrand) as early as May 2006. The applicant could have instituted action against the third respondent at that time, as the SAPS had a legal duty to keep the truck safe and failed to do so. The subsequent steps taken by the applicant did not alter the fact that the cause of action arose in May 2006, and the applicant had the minimum facts required to institute proceedings. The period from 2006 to 2018 far exceeds the three-year prescription period, and the applicant's claim is therefore prescribed.

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 63
Parties
Applicant: Lesiba Michael Mapheto; Respondent: Samuel Mamabolo; Respondent: Rahlaba Samuel; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Case Number
535/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed; respondents' point in limine of prescription upheld with costs.
Judges
KGANYAGO
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Prescription, Cause of Action, Knowledge of Debt
Civil Procedure Spoliation Prescription Cause of Action Knowledge of Debt

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

Lesiba Michael Mapheto

Applicant

Samuel Mamabolo

Respondent

Rahlaba Samuel

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for restoration of possession of the Tipper Truck is prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had the requisite knowledge of the facts and identity of the debtor to institute action prior to July 2018.
  3. 3 Whether the spoliation application can succeed given the lapse of time since the cause of action arose.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had actual knowledge of the disappearance of the truck and the identity of the responsible party (SAPS Midrand) as early as May 2006. The applicant could have instituted action against the third respondent at that time, as the SAPS had a legal duty to keep the truck safe and failed to do so. The subsequent steps taken by the applicant did not alter the fact that the cause of action arose in May 2006, and the applicant had the minimum facts required to institute proceedings. The period from 2006 to 2018 far exceeds the three-year prescription period, and the applicant's claim is therefore prescribed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; respondents' point in limine of prescription upheld with costs.

Orders

  • The respondents’ point in limine of prescription is upheld with costs on party and party scale.