Advocate C Bisschoff N O on behalf of Denzil John Reyners v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

On 20 February 2001, Mr Denzil John Reyners fell from a moving train operated by PRASA and sustained severe head injuries including traumatic brain damage. He was treated at Somerset Hospital and Groote Schuur Hospital, underwent surgery, and was discharged by March 2001 with medical records indicating full recovery. However, the traumatic brain injury resulted in temporal lobe epilepsy, memory loss, aggression, personality changes, and permanent loss of cognitive abilities and executive functioning. After the accident, Mr Reyners continued living with his parents and worked in various unskilled positions intermittently. He became a father to two children. In June 2010, more than three years after the incident, Mr Reyners instructed attorneys to file a claim against PRASA. On 7 February 2013, Advocate C Bisschoff was appointed as curator ad litem to assist Mr Reyners with his legal affairs. On 23 August 2013, the curator issued summons against PRASA seeking damages. PRASA raised a special plea of prescription, arguing the claim had prescribed three years after the incident. The curator argued that Mr Reyners' mental defect prevented him from having knowledge required by s 12(3) of the Prescription Act, and alternatively that he was rendered 'insane' as contemplated in s 13(1)(a), delaying prescription until one year after the impediment ceased.

• Whether the prescription period commenced on the date of the incident (20 February 2001) in accordance with s 12(1) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1968
• Whether Mr Reyners had knowledge of the debtor's identity and the facts from which the debt arose as required by s 12(3) of the Prescription Act
• Whether Mr Reyners' mental impairment constituted an impediment that delayed the running of prescription under s 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act
• Whether a person of unsound mind incapable of managing their own affairs can be deemed to have acquired the necessary knowledge to institute a claim
• When prescription begins to run against a person under a disability who requires appointment of a curator ad litem

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the full court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal (against the trial court's dismissal of the special plea of prescription) with costs. This effectively reinstated the trial court's order dismissing PRASA's special plea of prescription and awarding the curator damages of approximately R3 million on behalf of Mr Reyners.

Where a creditor suffers from mental disability or cognitive impairment that renders them incapable of managing their own affairs and unable to appreciate the facts necessary to institute a legal claim, prescription does not begin to run until a curator ad litem is appointed to assist them. The existence of some residual functional capacity does not mean that a person with brain damage has acquired the knowledge of the debtor's identity and the facts from which the debt arises as required by s 12(3) of the Prescription Act. A person under a disability constituting an impediment under s 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act is protected from the running of prescription until that impediment ceases. The knowledge required under s 12(3) presupposes that the creditor has the cognitive capacity to recognize that they have suffered harm caused by someone else and to act upon that knowledge.

The Court noted that when experts are tasked with providing facts based on their investigations and they reach agreement with the opposing party's experts regarding these facts, the agreed-upon facts hold the same legal weight as facts explicitly agreed upon in pleadings in a pre-trial conference or through an exchange of admissions. The Court also observed that the concept of prescription focuses on punishing prolonged inaction rather than the inability to act, citing Van Zijl v Hoogenhout. The Court emphasized that interpreting 'knowledge of the facts from which the debt arises' to include knowledge that the debtor's conduct is wrongful and actionable in law would make the law of prescription ineffective, as held in Mtokonya v Minister of Police. Matojane JA noted approvingly the minority judgment of Le Grange J that Mr Reyners' capability to continue with some form of life after the fall could not possibly mean that he must have obtained knowledge of all the material facts from which the debt arose.

This case is significant in South African law as it clarifies the application of prescription provisions to persons suffering from mental disabilities and cognitive impairments. It establishes that persons of unsound mind who are incapable of managing their own affairs cannot be deemed to have acquired the knowledge required by s 12(3) of the Prescription Act to commence the running of prescription. The judgment confirms that where a person requires appointment of a curator ad litem due to mental incapacity, prescription only begins to run from the date of such appointment, not from the date of the incident giving rise to the claim. The case emphasizes that residual functional capacity (such as ability to work in unskilled jobs or conduct basic daily activities) does not negate a disability that prevents a person from acquiring the legal knowledge necessary to institute a claim. It also reinforces the principle that where expert evidence is uncontested, courts should not make assumptions contrary to such evidence. The case provides important protection for persons with cognitive impairments in delictual claims, ensuring they are not prejudiced by prescription running during periods when they lack capacity to appreciate their legal rights.