Silouette Investments Limited v Virgin Hotels Group Limited

In 2001 Silouette Investments Limited and a co-plaintiff instituted action against Virgin Hotels Group Limited for amounts allegedly owing under a written agreement for the sale of shares. During the litigation the plaintiffs amended their particulars of claim to substitute John Brook Dyer as plaintiff on the basis of an alleged cession of the claims. The respondent pleaded that the claims were not cedeable. The plaintiffs then re-amended the particulars of claim, reintroducing Silouette Investments Limited as plaintiff in November 2006. The respondent raised a special plea that the claim had prescribed, contending that prescription had not been validly interrupted and that the relevant prescription period was three years from when the debt became due in September 2001.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the interpretation of s 13(1)(b) of the Prescription Act by holding that a debtor is not 'outside the Republic' where it has submitted to South African jurisdiction and authorised local service. It also confirms that interruption of prescription under s 15 lapses if the original process is not prosecuted to final judgment, particularly where amendments result in a different plaintiff becoming the party pursuing the claim.