Mathome Training Development (Pty) Ltd v Finsch Diamond Mine Training Center and Another (424/2019) [2022] ZANCHC 8 (25 February 2022)

Mathome Training Development (Pty) Ltd v Finsch Diamond Mine Training Center and Another (424/2019) [2022] ZANCHC 8 (25 February 2022)

The court found that service of summons at the chosen domicilium citandi et executandi, being a postbox, was valid under Rule 4(1)(a)(iv) and supported by established case law. The sheriff's actions—affixing the summons to the postbox and sending it via registered mail—constituted proper service. Legal service was effected when the summons reached the postbox, which occurred on or about 27 February 2019, before the three-year prescription period expired. The subsequent collection and forwarding of the summons by the first defendant did not alter the date of legal service. The special plea of prescription was therefore dismissed, as the claim was not extinguished by prescription.

Citation
[2022] ZANCHC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Mathome Training Development (PTY) LTD; Defendant: Finsch Diamond Mine Training Center; Defendant: TNC Mining (PTY) LTD
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Case Number
424/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Raised and Adjudicated
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.
Judges
Williams
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Service of Process, Breach of Contract, Domicilium Citandi, Contractual Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Service of Process Breach of Contract Domicilium Citandi Contractual 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathome Training Development (PTY) LTD

Plaintiff

Finsch Diamond Mine Training Center

Defendant

TNC Mining (PTY) LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Raised and Adjudicated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether service of summons at the chosen domicilium citandi et executandi interrupted prescription.
  3. 3 Whether service by affixing and registered post to a postbox constitutes proper service under Rule 4(1)(a)(iv).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that service of summons at the chosen domicilium citandi et executandi, being a postbox, was valid under Rule 4(1)(a)(iv) and supported by established case law. The sheriff's actions—affixing the summons to the postbox and sending it via registered mail—constituted proper service. Legal service was effected when the summons reached the postbox, which occurred on or about 27 February 2019, before the three-year prescription period expired. The subsequent collection and forwarding of the summons by the first defendant did not alter the date of legal service. The special plea of prescription was therefore dismissed, as the claim was not extinguished by prescription.

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.