Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Mafate (903/2021) [2023] ZASCA 14; [2023] 2 All SA 332 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 537 (SCA) (17 February 2023)

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Mafate (903/2021) [2023] ZASCA 14; [2023] 2 All SA 332 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 537 (SCA) (17 February 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appointment of a curator ad litem for a person with permanent mental incapacity does not terminate the impediment contemplated in section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act. The impediment persists for as long as the creditor remains mentally incapacitated, and curatorship itself is an impediment. Therefore, the completion of prescription is delayed and does not occur until a year after the impediment ceases to exist, which in this case has not happened as Ms Mkhwanazi remains permanently incapacitated. The court found that the curator's failure to act within a year after appointment did not result in prescription, as the statutory impediment...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 14
Parties
Appellant: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cecil Tshepo Mokopane Mafate
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Case Number
903/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Petse, Mocumie, Carelse, Nhlangulela, Chetty
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Mental Incapacity, Curatorship, Extinctive Prescription, Access to Court
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Mental Incapacity Curatorship Extinctive Prescription Access to Court

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cecil Tshepo Mokopane Mafate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the appointment of a curator ad litem for a person with permanent mental incapacity terminate the impediment under section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act?
  2. 2 Is a curator precluded from invoking section 12 of the Prescription Act when neither the curator nor the person under curatorship had knowledge of the debtor's identity and the facts giving rise to the debt?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appointment of a curator ad litem for a person with permanent mental incapacity does not terminate the impediment contemplated in section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act. The impediment persists for as long as the creditor remains mentally incapacitated, and curatorship itself is an impediment. Therefore, the completion of prescription is delayed and does not occur until a year after the impediment ceases to exist, which in this case has not happened as Ms Mkhwanazi remains permanently incapacitated. The court found that the curator's failure to act within a year after appointment did not result in prescription, as the statutory impediment...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.