Staegemann v Langhoven 2011 (5) SA 648 (WCC)
Area of law:
The applicant owned a motor vehicle which his neighbour fraudulently sold to a third party; the third party subsequently sold the vehicle to the respondent. The respondent refused to return the vehicle to the applicant.
The applicant raised rei vindicatio to recover the vehicle. The respondent raised the defence that 3 years had lapsed since the institution of
proceedings and that the action had prescribed as it was a debt in terms of s10 of the Prescription Act.
The court held that the applicant’s rei vindicatio did not prescribe.
Rei vindicatio does not constitute a debt for the purposes of prescription.
WEBSITE DISCLAIMER: Save for the contents of this disclaimer, the content of this website is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal or other professional advice. To the extent that you wish to place reliance upon any information contained on this website, you do so totally at your own risk and we accept no responsibility for any loss or damage
whatsoever, howsoever arising. In addition, the hyperlinks provided on this website are provided for convenience only. We make no representations or warranties whatsoever in respect of the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, opinions, data and/or content provided on such linked website, nor do we endorse or take any responsibility for the content of any such linked website.