Venter and Another v Steyn and Others (3368/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 107 (19 July 2023)

Venter and Another v Steyn and Others (3368/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 107 (19 July 2023)

The court found that the legal nature of a Close Corporation is akin to a company, not a partnership, and that the cause of action for the plaintiffs’ claims arose on 3 June 2019, when the majority members resolved not to repay the amounts advanced and the nature of the loan was disputed. The court held that prescription did not commence until this resolution, as prior to that date the plaintiffs were under the impression that the amounts were loans and repayable. The special pleas of prescription were dismissed as the claims had not become prescribed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs as the successful party.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 107
Parties
Plaintiff: Wernich Venter; Plaintiff: Hartzer en Steyn Belegging CC; Defendant: OJ Steyn; Defendant: L van der Merwe; Defendant: Minister of Mineral and Energy Resources
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Case Number
3368/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as a Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4) Prior to Evidence.
Outcome
Special pleas of prescription dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Judges
FMM Reid
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Close Corporation Liability, Special Plea of Prescription, Separation of Issues, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Close Corporation Liability Special Plea of Prescription Separation of Issues Fiduciary Duties

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wernich Venter

Plaintiff

Hartzer en Steyn Belegging CC

Plaintiff

OJ Steyn

Defendant

L van der Merwe

Defendant

Minister of Mineral and Energy Resources

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as a Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4) Prior to Evidence.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs’ claims have become prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the legal nature of a Close Corporation is akin to a company or a partnership for prescription purposes.
  3. 3 Determination of the date on which the cause of action arose for prescription calculation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the legal nature of a Close Corporation is akin to a company, not a partnership, and that the cause of action for the plaintiffs’ claims arose on 3 June 2019, when the majority members resolved not to repay the amounts advanced and the nature of the loan was disputed. The court held that prescription did not commence until this resolution, as prior to that date the plaintiffs were under the impression that the amounts were loans and repayable. The special pleas of prescription were dismissed as the claims had not become prescribed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs as the successful party.

Court Disposition

Special pleas of prescription dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The special pleas of prescription are dismissed.
  • The costs of the special pleas, including the costs of the separation of the special pleas, are to be paid by the defendants individually and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.