Joinder applications and third party liability: When does a prescription period actually commence?

Image source: Freepik

Background

The case in question involves a plaintiff who sustained injuries from slipping on water in a store. The plaintiff initially filed a claim against the defendant, a cleaning services company, alleging negligence in maintaining a safe environment. The defendant, in turn, raised a Special Plea of Non-joinder, arguing that the third party, the store owner, had a direct and substantial interest in the case and should be joined as a co-defendant.

Legal framework

Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court

The primary legal provision governing the joinder of parties in South African civil procedure is Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court. This rule allows for the joinder of multiple defendants in one action if the questions of law or fact arising between them and the plaintiff are substantially the same. The rule aims to promote judicial efficiency and fairness by consolidating related claims into a single proceeding.

Beyond the disclaimer sign: mitigating slip-and-fall liability in public spaces

Garth Duncan & Chandni Gopal  24 Mar 2025

Prescription Act

Another critical aspect in this case was the Prescription Act, which sets a three-year period for the prescription of debts. The third party argued that the plaintiff's claim had prescribed, as the incident occurred more than three years before the joinder application was filed.

Court's analysis

Direct and substantial interest

The court first examined whether the third party had a direct and substantial interest in the litigation. The defendant was an independent contractor hired by the third party to maintain the store's cleanliness. The plaintiff's injuries were allegedly caused by a blocked fridge drain, a condition for which the third party was responsible. Given these facts, the court found that the third party indeed had a direct and substantial interest in the case.

Same questions of law and fact

The court also considered whether the determination of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant involved the same questions of law and fact as those between the plaintiff and the third party. The issues of negligence and liability were central to both disputes, making it appropriate to join the third party to avoid inconsistent judgments and ensure comprehensive adjudication.

Public liability vs personal negligence: Judgment a warning against opportunistic litigation

Mtho Maphumulo  5 Dec 2024

Prescription

The third party contended that the plaintiff's claim had prescribed, as the plaintiff knew the identity of the debtor (the third party) when the incident occurred. However, the court noted that the plaintiff only became aware of the specific cause of the water accumulation (the blocked fridge drain) much later. According to Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, a debt is not deemed due until the creditor knows the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises. The court ruled that the prescription period commenced when the plaintiff became aware of these facts, thus the claim had not prescribed.

Conclusion

The court ultimately granted the joinder application, allowing the third party to be added as a co-defendant. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all parties with a direct and substantial interest in a case are joined to avoid fragmented litigation and inconsistent judgments. The ruling also highlights the nuanced application of the Prescription Act in determining when a claim is deemed to have prescribed.

In summary, the joinder of a third party in legal proceedings is a complex but essential process that ensures comprehensive and fair adjudication. This case adds to the existing case authority precedent for future disputes involving multiple parties and shared liability.