- The SCA confirmed that the death of a registered owner qualifies as a "superior force," suspending the 30-year period needed for acquisitive prescription.
- The ruling underscores that South African law upholds property rights and prescription in a balanced, constitutionally sound manner.
- Hassody Katha’s claim to ownership failed as the prescriptive period had not been completed when she filed her legal action.
When does long-term possession of a property turn into ownership? That’s the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein, which has now clarified how property rights and prescription intersect, especially when death disrupts the legal landscape.
The SCA ruled that the death of a property owner can interrupt the running of the 30-year period required to claim ownership through acquisitive prescription, a legal doctrine that allows someone to gain ownership of property they've occupied like an owner for decades.
At the centre of the dispute is a modest home in Benoni. Hassody Katha, the appellant, claimed she had lived in and maintained the property since 1986. On this basis, she argued she had become the rightful owner under section 1 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, the law that governs how possession of a property can lead to ownership if it is continuous, open, and uninterrupted for 30 years.
But this argument was challenged by the daughters of the late Lutchmia Katha, the original registered owner. Acting as executrixes of their mother’s estate, Primathie Pillay and Kanderuby Ramoothy said that the clock on prescription stopped ticking when their mother passed away in 2014. They argued that her death constituted a “superior force”, preventing them, and the estate, from defending their legal ownership in time.
This raised a crucial legal question: Does the death of a registered owner delay or pause acquisitive prescription? In other words, can someone lose their rights to a home simply because another person stayed long enough, even if they died before being able to act?
Balancing the scales: The law of property rights and prescription
In its detailed judgment, the SCA reaffirmed that South African law protects property rights and prescription in ways that must be fair, contextual, and constitutional. The Court found that death is indeed a “superior force” under section 3(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, which delays or suspends prescription where a person is unable to act due to circumstances beyond their control.
Here, the death of Katha meant that the estate could not defend the ownership claim until an executor was appointed in October 2017. That delay meant the full 30-year period of uninterrupted prescription had not lapsed by the time the claim was instituted, therefore, the claim failed.
Importantly, the court approached the issue by weighing the constitutional right to property under section 25 of the Constitution against the fairness of prescription claims. It held that the law must ensure that registered owners, living or deceased, are not arbitrarily deprived of property. The rights of a possessor must not trample those of an estate that has been legally frozen due to death.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
