Fisher v Natal Rubber Compounders (Pty) Ltd

George Beaton trading as Meranti and Board issued summons against Bernard Fisher in November 2010 for payment of R1 077 377 for goods sold and delivered to Strongwood Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd, for which Fisher had bound himself as surety. Pleadings closed in January 2011, thereby reaching litis contestatio. In October 2013 Meranti ceded all its rights, title and interest in the claim to Natal Rubber Compounders (Pty) Ltd (NRC). Following fulfilment of the suspensive conditions, Meranti amended the summons to substitute NRC as plaintiff. Fisher did not oppose the substitution but thereafter raised a special plea of prescription, contending that the cession and substitution after litis contestatio caused the earlier interruption of prescription to lapse under sections 15(2) and (6) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

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

The judgment authoritatively clarifies that a cession of a claim after litis contestatio, followed by substitution of the cessionary as plaintiff, does not cause prescription to revive. It reinforces the principle of continuity of process and provides certainty on the interaction between cession, substitution, and prescription under South African law.