Edelstein v Edelstein NO 1952 (3) SA 1 (A)

Edelstein v Edelstein NO 1952 (3) SA 1 (A)

Issue: Whether a minor is capable of acquiring prescription under section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act 68 of 1969).

Facts:

Edelstein, a minor, inherited a claim from her father. Edelstein's mother, who was the executrix of her father's estate, did not institute proceedings on the claim within the three-year prescription period prescribed by section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act 68 of 1969).

After Edelstein turned 18, she instituted proceedings on the claim. The defendant argued that the claim was prescribed because Edelstein's mother had not instituted proceedings on the claim within the three-year prescription period.

Held:

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Edelstein's claim was not prescribed. The SCA reasoned that a minor is not capable of acquiring prescription under section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act 68 of 1969).

Key Facts:

• A minor inherited a claim from her father.
• The minor's mother, who was the executrix of her father's estate, did not institute proceedings on the claim within the three-year prescription period prescribed by section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act 68 of 1969).
• After the minor turned 18, she instituted proceedings on the claim.
• The defendant argued that the claim was prescribed because the minor's mother had not instituted proceedings on the claim within the three-year prescription period.

Reasons:

The SCA reasoned that a minor is not capable of acquiring prescription under section 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act 68 of 1969). The SCA held that this is because a minor is not capable of taking the steps necessary to protect his or her rights, such as instituting proceedings on a claim.

The SCA also held that the prescription period does not run against a minor, even if the minor has a guardian who can institute proceedings on his or her behalf. The SCA reasoned that this is because a guardian is not the same as a parent and does not have the same legal powers and responsibilities as a parent.

Conclusion:

The SCA's decision in Edelstein v Edelstein NO 1952 (3) SA 1 (A) is a significant case because it clarifies the law relating to the prescription of claims against minors. The decision emphasizes that minors are protected from the running of prescription and that they have the right to institute proceedings on their claims even after they turn 18.

The decision also provides guidance to guardians on their role in protecting the rights of minors. The decision emphasizes that guardians do not have the same legal powers and responsibilities as parents and that they cannot institute proceedings on behalf of minors without their consent.