Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Mafate

An employee, Ms Nolunga Mkhwanazi, suffered severe injuries in October 2014 after falling from a cage attached to a forklift at a Checkers Hyper store. The accident rendered her permanently mentally incapacitated. Because of her incapacity, she could not institute legal proceedings herself. In February 2017, Mr Cecil Tshepo Mokopane Mafate was appointed as her curator ad litem. The curator initially instituted a delictual damages claim against Shoprite Holdings Ltd, believing it to be the responsible entity. In July 2017, Shoprite Holdings pleaded misjoinder and non-joinder, revealing that the correct defendant was its subsidiary, Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd. The curator withdrew the first action in June 2018 and instituted fresh proceedings against Shoprite Checkers in October 2018. Shoprite Checkers raised a special plea of prescription, arguing that the claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the interaction between sections 12 and 13 of the Prescription Act and confirms that they are not mutually exclusive. It affirms that permanently mentally incapacitated persons, acting through curators ad litem, are not unfairly barred by prescription where knowledge of the debtor and material facts was lacking. The judgment reinforces a constitutionally informed approach to prescription that promotes access to courts for vulnerable litigants.