Stemmet and Another v Mokhethi and Another (681/2022) [2023] ZASCA 127 (4 October 2023)

Stemmet and Another v Mokhethi and Another (681/2022) [2023] ZASCA 127 (4 October 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were in possession of sufficient facts to institute action against the appellants as early as June 2014. The respondents had observed structural cracks, patchwork indicating concealment, and deterioration of the property, which was sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the appellants had fraudulently concealed latent defects. The court found that knowledge of the precise cause of the defects was not required for prescription to commence. The majority of the full court erred in concluding that prescription only began when the respondents learned the cause of the defects. The appeal was upheld, and the special plea of prescription...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 127
Parties
Appellant: Gideon Jakobus Petrus Stemmet; Appellant: Elaine Stemmet; Respondent: Tseliso James Mokhethi; Respondent: Mmakweleng Naomi Mokhethi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2023
Case Number
681/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondents' claim dismissed on prescription grounds.
Judges
Makgoka, Matojane, Weiner, Molefe, Mali
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Latent Defects, Fraudulent Non Disclosure, Property Sale Disputes, Minimum Facts for Prescription, Special Plea of Prescription
Civil Procedure Delict Land and Property Prescription Act Latent Defects Fraudulent Non Disclosure Property Sale Disputes Minimum Facts for Prescription +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Jakobus Petrus Stemmet

Appellant

Elaine Stemmet

Appellant

Tseliso James Mokhethi

Respondent

Mmakweleng Naomi Mokhethi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does prescription begin to run in respect of a claim for latent defects in property?
  2. 2 Is knowledge of the cause of the defects required for prescription to commence?
  3. 3 Did the respondents possess the minimum facts necessary to institute action prior to 27 July 2017?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were in possession of sufficient facts to institute action against the appellants as early as June 2014. The respondents had observed structural cracks, patchwork indicating concealment, and deterioration of the property, which was sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the appellants had fraudulently concealed latent defects. The court found that knowledge of the precise cause of the defects was not required for prescription to commence. The majority of the full court erred in concluding that prescription only began when the respondents learned the cause of the defects. The appeal was upheld, and the special plea of prescription...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondents' claim dismissed on prescription grounds.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and replaced with an order upholding the special plea of prescription and dismissing the plaintiffs' claim with costs.