Wiese N.O and Another v Coetzee N.O and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 444; 21988/2020 (20 June 2023)

Wiese N.O and Another v Coetzee N.O and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 444; 21988/2020 (20 June 2023)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to institute the action within the 30-day period stipulated by the agreed order of 13 March 2017, and no extension was sought. This resulted in a lack of locus standi. Furthermore, the claim for damages related to trust funds appropriated in 2008, and the plaintiffs were aware of the debt at least by 7 June 2016. The three-year prescription period expired before the summons was served in May 2020. The plaintiffs' arguments regarding wilful prevention and minority status were rejected, as the second plaintiff was a major at the relevant time and had full legal capacity. Both special pleas were upheld.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 444
Parties
Plaintiff: Minette Wiese N.O.; Plaintiff: Minette Wiese; Defendant: Mariska Martha Coetzee N.O.; Defendant: Mariska Martha Coetzee; Defendant: The Master of the High Court of South Africa, Pretoria; Defendant: Stephan Coetzee; Defendant: Miné Coetzee
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2023
Case Number
21988/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Pleas Adjudicated Prior to Merits
Outcome
Special pleas of lack of locus standi and prescription upheld; action dismissed.
Judges
van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Prescription Act Section 11, Trust Funds, Special Plea, Debate of Accounts
Civil Procedure Land and Property Locus Standi Prescription Act Section 11 Trust Funds Special Plea Debate of Accounts

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minette Wiese N.O.

Plaintiff

Minette Wiese

Plaintiff

Mariska Martha Coetzee N.O.

Defendant

Mariska Martha Coetzee

Defendant

The Master of the High Court of South Africa, Pretoria

Defendant

Stephan Coetzee

Defendant

Miné Coetzee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Pleas Adjudicated Prior to Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the action outside the period stipulated by the prior court order.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages had prescribed under the Prescription Act, 68 of 1969.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to institute the action within the 30-day period stipulated by the agreed order of 13 March 2017, and no extension was sought. This resulted in a lack of locus standi. Furthermore, the claim for damages related to trust funds appropriated in 2008, and the plaintiffs were aware of the debt at least by 7 June 2016. The three-year prescription period expired before the summons was served in May 2020. The plaintiffs' arguments regarding wilful prevention and minority status were rejected, as the second plaintiff was a major at the relevant time and had full legal capacity. Both special pleas were upheld.

Court Disposition

Special pleas of lack of locus standi and prescription upheld; action dismissed.

Orders

  • The first and second special pleas of the first and second defendants are upheld.
  • The plaintiffs are to pay the costs, jointly or severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.