Masilo and Others v Betterbridge (Pty) Limited

Betterbridge (Pty) Ltd instituted an action against the appellants. The appellants raised a special plea that the claim had prescribed. Betterbridge relied on s 13(1)(g) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, contending that prescription was delayed because its debt had been the object of a claim filed against a company in liquidation in terms of s 44 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936. The claim had been lodged with the Master and admitted to proof at a meeting of creditors, but was subsequently withdrawn. The High Court rejected the special plea of prescription and held that prescription had been delayed. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the interpretation of s 13(1)(g) of the Prescription Act in the context of insolvency proceedings. It confirms that prescription is delayed once a claim is admitted to proof at a meeting of creditors, even if the claim is later withdrawn, and that completion of the full adjudication process under the Insolvency Act is not required. This provides certainty on when the impediment to prescription arises in liquidation contexts.