Hassody Katha v Primathie Pillay N.O. and Others

The dispute concerned ownership of an immovable property in Benoni registered in the name of the late Lutchmia Katha. The appellant, her daughter-in-law, claimed to have possessed the property since 1986 openly and as if she were the owner, and alleged that she had acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription under section 1 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. Ms Katha died on 18 August 2014. Her daughters, appointed as executrixes of her estate in 2017, raised a special plea that the 30-year prescription period had not been completed because Ms Katha’s death constituted a ‘superior force’ under section 3(1)(a) of the Act, suspending the running of prescription. The High Court upheld the special plea and dismissed the acquisitive prescription claim, leading to this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s order upholding the special plea and dismissing the claim of acquisitive prescription was confirmed.

This judgment authoritatively clarifies that the death of a registered owner constitutes a ‘superior force’ under section 3(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, suspending the running of acquisitive prescription. It reinforces a purposive and constitutionally aligned interpretation of prescription law, balancing protection of registered property rights with acquisitive prescription claims.