LAW OF PROPERTY

MODULE 8
LECTURE 4 – 5 MAY 2021

INTRO

During the previous lecture we continued to discuss module 8 and we there

specifically discussed the animus or the intention element of civil possession which
is necessary to acquire property through acquisitive prescription. We dealt with most
aspects of the animus element and we're going to conclude our discussion of the
animus element during today's lecture. In today's lecture we are going to conclude
original acquisition of ownership by focusing on several last important aspects of
acquisitive prescription.

POSSESSION REQUIREMENT

These aspects related to, for instance the aggregation of prescription periods, are
the distinction between unlawful and illegal control, which types of property are
susceptible to acquisitive prescription, the consequences of acquisitive prescription,
the interruption and postponement of acquisitive prescription and then finally the
rationales for the justifications of acquisitive prescription. So without further ado they
just jump in and consider the last aspects of acquisitive prescription. During the
previous lecture we discussed the concept of nec precario, adverse user, as-if-owner
and animus domini, and we saw then what each of these terms mean. Now the
matter that I would like to focus on now and the conclusion of our discussion of the
animus element or the intention element, is what is the relationship between each of
these requirements?

Now the answer that to this question was given in the Morgenster case, which is one
of the prescribed cases in this module. In that judgement the court concluded the
debate as to what these relationship between each of these qualifications is by ruling
that the as-if owner requirement, which we find the 1969 act, is the same as the
animus domini element of civil possession and the as-if owner requirement which is
the same as the animus domini element includes the nec precario adverse-user
requirements, and the reason for this is you cannot control property as if you are the
owner thereof. In other words you cannot control property with the animus domini,
which means you have civil possession. You can't control property as if you are the
owner thereof if you have an informal understanding with an owner in terms of the
next-recovery requirement or if you use the property in terms of a contract such as a
lease, which will then mean that there is non-compliance with the adverse user
requirement. So to have civil possession of property, as if you are the owner of
property, it requires that there should be no informal understanding between the civil
possessor and the owner of the property and there should also be no contract
between the civil possessor and the owner of the property which is in terms of the
adverse user requirement.

So all of these requirements are encapsulated by the as-if owner requirement which
means the same thing as the animus domini which essentially amounts to a
codification of the fact that civil possession is required to acquire property through a
question prescription, given that civil position consists of the corpus or the physical
element and the animus domini or the as-if owner element. Now, to come as a final
word to conclude our discussion of the animus element, I want to mention a specific
instance which one encounters quite often in cases which concerned with a
prescription and this is the matter

What happens when a person who has several possession of a property when such person
offers to lease the property from the owner or even to purchase the land from the owner?

Now when such an offer is made and it is made explicitly, so it's preferably made in
the form of writing, this will eliminate the animus domini element. So if the civil
possessor offers to lease and to purchase the land such offer is irreconcilable with
possession as-if owner. So they would no longer be compliant with the as-if owner
requirement because when that offer is made the civil possessor recognises the
stronger right of the owner in the property and for this reason there is no longer than
compliance with the animus domini element’ which means that the controller no
longer has civil possession and the controller will then have holdership or natural
position as the controller no longer holds the property as if he or she is the owner
thereof. In such a case any time which has run in favour of the controllers, say the
controller persist the land for 15 years, when this offer is made this offer will result in
the prescription period having to start to running anew. So if the controller remains in
control of the property and the landowner does nothing, so the landowner does not
evict the controller from the land after this lease or purchase offer was made, it is
possible for prescription to start running again should the controller comply with all
the requirements of acquisitive prescription and not recognised stronger right of the
owner in the land however a new prescription will start to run from the moment that
the offer was made. So, this will mean that if the controller possessed the land for 15
years, the controller will now have to possess the land for an additional 30 years
because that is the full prescription, given that the previous 15 years would have
been for nought, given that in the year 15 there was no longer compliance with the
as-if owner requirements.
When such an offer is made, such as offered to lease or to purchase the land this
results in the interruption of the running of prescription and we are going to discuss
the interruption of the running of prescription later today as well the means as I've
stated. Just know that if the running of prescription is interrupted, it comes to an end
because there's no longer compliance all the requirements for requesting
prescription and time could only start read running again in favour of the controller is
the controller complies with all the requirements for prescription so in new
prescription. Will start running and knew from the time when the controller again
complies with all the requirements for prescription we're not going to look at another
aspect of the possession requirement ladies and gentlemen this is the possibility to
aggregate prescription periods or periods of possession now this is known as
aggregation of prescription periods or canoe tiered emporium in Latin and this simply
means that to purposes of satisfying the prescription. In other words is 30 year. It is
not necessary for only one per that only one person should have controlled or
possessed the property for the whole 30 year. The law permits successive
controllers or possessors of the property to aggregate their successive periods of
possession in order to meet the 30 year prescription. Other words successive
controllers or possessors of property may add their periods of possession together
so as to comply with the the prescription. Aggregation of prescription periods is
possible under both the 1943 and the 1969 prescription act soon though the 1969
prescription act explicitly allows for aggregation of prescription periods despite the
fact that the 1943 act did not mention this explicitly our courts regarded this common
rule rule as forming part of our prescription requirements to aggregate or two add
successive periods of prescription to one another the only requirement that the law
states ladies gentlemen is that there must be a derivative link between successive
possessors in other words they must be a juristic act which links successive
possessors to one another and examples of such juristic acts include contracts of
sale or contracts of donation or inheritance so if one possessor started to possess
the land and prescription started running and that possesses sells the land too
another this person that person will then continue the running of prescription the
same will happen in the context of donation and in the context of inheritance now but
it's also important to realise here is that for aggregation of prescription periods to
exist it is crucial that all possessors receipt to meet the city of prescription periods of
all successive possessors must satisfy all the requirements for acquisitive
prescription if one of these successive possessors does not satisfy all the
requirements for aggressive prescription that will result in an interruption of the
running of prescription and it will then not be possible to acquire the property through
prescription and list one of the successive possessors again satisfies the prescription
periods which will sorry any prescription requirements which will then result in in a
new prescription. Starting to run and you so as regards aggregation of prescription.
Size gentlemen it is important to realise that if there's one possessor who possesses
land for say 20 years and that possesses in abandons land and another possessor
takes control of the land and there's no derivative link between the first possession of
the second possessor such as a contract of sale to national inheritance they will not
be aggregation of prescription periods the second possessor will then start his or her
own prescription. Which was then comply with the 30 year. This is a very subtle yet
important distinction because it it highlights the importance of there having to be a
derivative link between successive possessors for aggregation of prescription
periods to take place we now come to the lasst aspect of the position requirement as
gentlemen and this concerns the distinction between unlawful and illegal control now
you might think that these two terms may be used as synonyms to describe the type
of control prison because after all to acquire property through prescription you have
to civilly possess the property which is a form of unlawful possession this is because
the property has to be possessed without the permission of the owner of the property
and also without there being a contract between the possessor and the owner of the
property now this is against the owners wishes So what does this does so wait is this
distinction into the the picture because this type of control or position may be
described as being either unlawful or illegal the difference raised intiman is an
important one because here we have to distinguish when property is possessed
without the permission of the owner or without there being a contract with the owner
in the absence of permission of such a contract that control will be unlawful it will be
against established principles because the civil possessor will have possession of
the property in contravention of the rules of property law this situation must be
distinguished from control being illegal in other words where legislation excludes the
control of property and this will typically be seen in the context of criminal law namely
where criminal legislation makes it illegal to control or possess certain types of
property in other words where the mere holding or physical control of such property
stick clear decrim examples of such of things the control of which is is illegal include
for instance uncut diamonds and child *********** so given the fact that legislation
declares the control of such things to be illegal this means that it is impossible to
acquire such things through acquisitive prescription even though you might have it in
your control without anyone's permission or without you having any right for a period
of the ts so when dealing with an acquisitive prescription case days gentlemen keep
this distinction in mind and always ensure that the type of control is unlawful control
because only unlawful control can lead to acquisition through acquisitive prescription
illegal control on the other hand can never lead to the acquisition of property through
acquisitive prescription most things that isn't gentleman may be acquired through
acquisitive prescription we've dealt with this earlier on when I said that both
movables Andy movables may be acquired through acquisitive prescription it's also
possible to acquire servitudes through acquisitive prescription although we are not
going to be looking at the acquisition of servitude are certain types of property which
are excluded from the effects of acquisitive prescription in other ways that all forms
of property which or not susceptible to acquisitive prescription so the most important
statute in this regard is the state land sposal act from 1961 which stipulates that
state land is not susceptible to acquisition through wizard prescription so all land
which is owned by the state in any of the the different spheres of government in
other words where they'd be the national the provincial or men disipal branch of state
or government if land is state lands are land belongs to the national government the
provincial government or a local authority such land cannot be acquired through
aggressive prescription yet this state land disposal act does not exclude movable
state property from their things of acquisitive prescription so it is still possible to
acquire movable property which belonged to the state even though it's no longer
possible to acquire land which belongs to the state other things which are not
susceptible to crystal prescription or things outside of Commerce or raise extra
commercial room which we did earlier when we focused on the characteristics of a
thing in module 4 turn example of things that outside of Commerce includes the air
that we breathe what are the forms of things that are outside of conversation
gentlemen or public things or raise public eye and public things are also excluded
from the effects of acquisitive prescription and public things are those things which
are meant to be used by the public as a whole so these things which are used by the
public include public roads sidewalks national parks and the seashore so these are
all examples of things in the form of land which cannot be acquired through
acquisitive prescription however except for these three limited instances terms of
state land disposal act the exact style of covers and public things all other things are
susceptible to acquisition through acquisitive prescription but what happens the
moment when a person satisfies all the requirements work wizard prescription data
subject we have answered this question when we started looking at the crystal
prescription because after all acquisitive prescription is an original method of
acquisition of ownership so it is possible to acquire ownership without the permission
of the cooperation of the owner of the thing as long as certain requirements are
satisfied we have now looked at the requirements for prescription at the moment
these requirements are satisfied it results in the so called ex Ligue acquisition Of the
property in in other words ex legger acquisition means acquisition by operation of
law so the moment a civil position satisfies all the requirements for Krista prescription
year she acquires ownership of that property by operation of law and no further act is
required from his or her side to acquire ownership in the context of land registration
is not required for add acquisition of ownership as registration we will see under
module 9 is only requirement for acquiring ownership of land through derivative
acquisition of ownership in other words where there is a bilateral legal relationship
but ownership is transferred from one person to another server so registration is not
needed to acquire land through acquisitive prescription even though it is advisable to
have the land registered in your name after you have acquired it through acquisitive
prescription as you will not be able to sell the land and to transfer ownership of the
land to other persons or to bird to bird in the land with limited real rights like a
servitude or a mortgage as these juristic acts require registration so even though it's
not a requirement for acquiring then through a quiz a prescription off to have
acquired it it is still advisable to have the land registered in your name as regards the
better of what the impact of an acquisition to acoustic prescription has on existing
limited real rights in the land X gentlemen like a servitude or in mortgage Please note
that this aspect is for self study and is discussed in the prescribed textbook in the
part on acquisitive prescription the same applies to the loss of the Raven the Cartier
the Raven record you being the action with which owner may reclaim property from
another person who holds it without his or her permission the Raven Dakar two can
only be lost when ownership of land itself is lost through acquisitive prescription with
its 30 year prescription. So please have a look at this at your own time ladies and
gentlemen as well see how the loss of the Raven de Cartier works with regard to
acquisition of property through kwizera scription a significant aspect of a quiz of the
consequences of acquisitive prescription ladies and gentlemen includes the fact that
no compensation is payable to an owner who loses property especially land through
acquisitive prescription this is because no provision is made for compensation in the
common law or in the 1943 prescription act or in the 1969 prescription act it's
impossible to claim damages with the undo Liga **** Willy I as such action which
would have become prescribed three years after it became a claimable tooth within
three years of the possessor having taken possession of land if the owner does not
claim damages through the octave legacy quickly I such a claim will become
extinguished through extinctive prescription extinctive prescription in contrast with
positive prescription refers to the extinction of dates which are not claimed within a
period of three yes which mentor is also regulated by the prescription act but which
we will not get in in this module it's also not possible to claim enrichment through the
law unjustified enrichment ladies and gentlemen because one of the requirements
for a claim based on a justified enrichment is that the Richmond must have
happened scenic kausar or without legal basis though there is non compliance with
this requirement in the context of prescription because when property is acquired
through acquisitive prescription there is a legal basis for such acquisition namely the
prescription act so this means that the acquisition is with a legal cause and not
without illegal cause thereby excluding any possible claim what could have had in
terms of unjustified enrichment now the fact that no compensation is payable is
indeed a harsh consequence ladies and gentlemen especially where a landowner
loses ownership of land and we will return to this matter in our discussion of the
rational justifications of requested description later in this picture welcome to the
interruption of the running of acquisitive prescription they didn't gentleman and we
briefly touched on interruption of Christopher scription earlier when we discussed it
what happens when a simple possession makes offer to an owner of land to lease
the land from such owner or to purchase the land such owner there I told you that
such conduct amounts to an interruption of the running of Bristol description which
means that a new prescription. Will start running in knew from the date when he
controller again satisfies all the requirements for Kristen prescription so interruption
of the running of this quizup ascription means that a specific event occurs which
terminates the running of prescription so it effectively ends the prescription. Which
has accumulated thus far and the result of such interruption is that the 30 year
prescription. Was start running and you or in Latin de Novo now there are two types
of interruption in our law in terms of our common law and the first is natural
interruption and the 2nd is civil interruption the position regarding these two types of
interruption differed with regard to the 1943 prescription act and the 1969
prescription act under the 1943 prescription act common law position applied well
under the 1969 prescription act the process of natural civil interruption is now
regulated by that act and is slightly different when compared to the 1943 act so let us
first look at of these two types of interruption in the 1943 act natural interruption days
dijamant occurs when the civil possessor loses control of the property control of
property may be lost in one of two ways either where the civil possessor gives up
control voluntarily so freely and voluntarily hands over the property to another person
this will result in the interruption of the running of acquisitive prescription all if such
civil possessor loses control over the property other words where control of the
property is forcibly taken from him or her whether it be by the owner in other person
all through superior force such as a flood or a war situation so should any of these
things occur it would amount to natural interruption of the running of prescription and
a new prescription. Will only commence when the civil possessor enginn takes
control of the property civil interruption on the other hand occurs when a process in
the form of a warrant and notice of motion and interdict which claims the owners
ownership he served on the controller so when this process is served on the
controller such serving of a process means that the running of prescription is
severely interrupted and with you. Or prescription will start running only if the person
who served the process in other words if the owner is served the process on the civil
possessor does not prosecute in terms of this process no it's also clear that when
civil possessor acknowledges the rights of the owners such as through making an
offer to lease the property or to purchase the property from the owner this also
amounts to a form of civil interruption so this is where the two are linked and this is
then will we touch on the discussion earlier where I stated that the moment that such
offer is made there is no long please gentlemen applies under the 1943 active

Arabic touch on earlier where I stated that the moment that such offer is made there
is no longer compliant anymore but as if owner requirement or the animus domani
element of civil possession that the position explained thus far later gentlemen
applies under the 1943 acted under the 1969 act things are a little different and we
are now going to look at how things look under the 1969 thanks other 1969 active
gentleman contain specific regulations with regard to both natural and civilization the
rest comes to natural possession act provides for the following position that the
Estates that in cases of involuntary loss of control other words where the civil
possessor loses possession of the property without his or her permission such as
through someone taking the property away from neighbour forcibly or where the
possessor is forced by superior force such as **** for instance to to abandon the
property interruption will not occur if control opposition is regained at anytime
through the institution within six months of the loss of control of legal proceedings
aimed at recovering such control so if there was involuntary loss of control
interruption will not take place as long as the civil possessor institute's legal
proceedings to recover control of the property within six months of losing such
control alternative interruption will not occur if the possessor regains control of the
property in any other lawful manner within one year after which control was lost so
these are two major qualifications for of the common law rules and natural
interruption that is gentlemen now 1969 act also says something about civil
interruption and the act size says that when it comes to the serving of it process
which would have resulted in interruption under the 1943 act the following position
applies until the 1969 exit is gentle when it comes to civil interruptions I stated under
the previous slide the following position applies according to the 1969 eight the
running on prescription will only be civilly or judicially interrupted by the service of a
process so it's the same process as was mentioned in a discussion of civil
interruption on the 1923 act in terms of which process the owner claims ownership of
the property from the controller however it should be noted that the interruption will
lapse will lapse rather and prescription will continue running and regarded as not
having been interrupted if the person claiming ownership does not successfully
prosecute the claim to final judgement with you she does not prosecute the claim
rather if you she does prosecute the claim but abandons the judgement with the
judgement is set aside so in other words merely serving a process is no longer
sufficient to severely interrupt the running of aggressive description that is gentlemen
there is an obligation on the person who serves the process to prosecute the claim to
final judgement so if the person reserves the process does not prosecute the claim
to final judgement or as I stated if you she does prosecute the claim but abandons
the judgement or if the judgement is set aside prescription will be deemed as not
having been interrupted and it will continue to run however should description be
interrupted in terms of civil interruption under 1969 act the new period of description
will commence only on the day on which final judgement is given so if God decides
in favour of the business of the process but that person does not reclaim control from
the civil possessor only from that that day will a new period of prescription start riding
in favour of the civil possessor if he retains control and satisfies all the requirements
for acquisitive prescription we now come to the second last element or aspect of
aggressive prescription ladies and gentlemen this concerns the postponement of the
completion of acquisitive prescription now postponement entails that prescription
does not run at all for as long as a postponing situation exists so if there is a
postponing situation present in a given scenario then prescription will not run and it
will not run for as long as their postponing situation remains now this postponing
situation is known as an impediment and the reason why law recognises something
like postponement is due to the fact that postponement is based on the principle that
prescription does not run against persons who cannot look after their own affairs now
this is because of the drastic consequences which prescription has namely the loss
of ownership on the side of an owner if a civil possessor complies with all the
requirements of prescription given this very drastic consequence the law protects
owners who are unable to look after their own affairs at it as it would be unfair toward
such owners if prescription would continue to run if these owners are unable to look
after their own affairs so for as long as an owner cannot look after his own affairs
post birth the running of prescription will be postponed meaning prescription. Will not
become complete so this is the meaning of postponement and postponement has a
different the rules rather office permanent differ as regards whether one is dealing
with the 1943 prescription act and whether one deals with the 1969 prescription act
the 1943 prescription act did not expressly regulate postponement so there the
common law position applied so we're first going to look at how postponement
operated under the 1943 act before we turned to the position under the 1969 act now
under the 1943 act which position was in terms of the common law the approach
was the following in terms of the common law and this act the group of persons who
were unable to look at their own affairs included the following and these persons are
also set out in the prescribed book Facebook so these persons including minors
persons of unsound mind persons under curatorship persons who were absent from
the land because of service to the state or by reason of war married women subject
to their husbands marital power for decor mosadi pending fulfilment of the condition
of the Fed a Commission it instances weather for day committee property was
alienated by a fiducia Arias who did not have the power to do so and finally persons
who were prevented from enforcing these rights so if any of these persons where the
owner of property the completion of prescription would be postponed until this
impediment fell away so for as long as this postponing situation exists prescription
would not run in favour of the civil possession it is now have a look at an example
under the next slide to see how the common law position under the 1943 act applied
on this slide ladies and gentlemen we have an example of postponement as it would
have operated in terms of the common law and the 1943 act now I've stated under
the previous slide that if a landowner in a situation where we're dealing with land if a
landowner fell into the group of persons against whom prescription cannot run like
for instance miners business of unsound mind business under curatorship married
women subject to their husbands medalled power and cetera escription was running
against any of these persons I put a postponing impediment would exist right
because these persons cannot look after their own affairs and in terms of the
common law rules or postpone postponement equiset prescription cannot run
against any of these persons now prescription would not run for as long as the
impediment exist so how does this operate in practise so young the slide we have a
timeline illustrated blood by the black line and you can see different years indicated
on this timeline so let's take a situation where someone took possession of someone
else's land and this possessor complied with all the requirements for quizzer
prescription so prescription would have started running in 1920 and under normal
circumstances the prescription. Would have been completed 30 years later so in
1950 a civil possessor would have acquired ownership of the property by operation
of law and this date I will describe as the due date so the due date is the date on
which the civil possessor would have acquired the property alright now in this
example we have an impediment that existed from 1930 to 1940 let's say that during
this time the landowner was against him prescription is running was a minor or was a
person of unsound mind for as long as this impediment exists prescription is
postponed and prescription cannot run in the favour of the civil possessor who
started to possess the property in 1920 so here they paid him and loss for 10 years
right and it from 1930 to 1940 and it fell away in 1940 prescription will only start
running again it'll only resume running in 1940 which means that given the fact that
the civil possessor possessed the land from 1920 to 1930 that was ten years of the
of the entire 30 year prescription period now there was a postponement from 1930 to
1940 which means prescription did not run during that time so only 10 years of the
prescription. Have completed by 1940 this means that the civil possessor must still
possess the property for an additional 20 years in service to complete the full 30
year. So in practise this means that the civil possession must possess the property
for an additional 10 years to what he or she would normally have had to possess the
property this is because the due date of the property of the due date of the
acquisition rather would have been in 1915 nineteen 50 had it not been for the
existence of the impediment but because the impediment loss to 14 years
prescription could not run for 10 years which means that the civil position must
possess the land for the dish for an additional 10 years over and above the total 30
years he or she would normally have had to possess the property so in this situation
the civil possessor would only acquire the property in 1960 in other words after
possessing it for a total of 40 years even the 10 year rip element which existed from
1930 to 1940 so this is the position that is gentleman that applied under the common
law under the 1943 act and we will see that the 9069 act has drastically changed this
position as I've mentioned under the previous slide ladies and gentlemen the 1969
act drastically altered the common law position which applied under the 1943 act this
is because the 1969 X specifically regulates the issue of postponement and
therefore the act replaces the common law in this regard under the 1969 act we deal
with two specific groups of people namely on the firstly persons against whom
prescription is running other words the owners of property and Secondly persons in
favour of whom prescription is running now the 1969 act provides for a unique Jane
of events should a person fall into one of the two mentioned groups I will explain this
unique channel events shortly let us first look at the types of persons move fall into
first group namely the group against to end ascription is running this group includes
persons who are minors persons of unsound mind business under curatorship and
those who are prevented by superior force from interrupting the running of
prescription so here we see that there is a correlation between the types of persons
yeah and the types of persons against whom prescription cannot run in terms of the
common law although it is more streamlined under the 1969 act as it is a smaller
group of persons who are relevant in this regard the second group of persons under
the 1969 act namely those in whose favour prescription is running includes persons
who are outside of the Republic of South Africa this is what married to the person
against whom prescription is running and persons who are members of the
governing body of a juristic person against whom prescription is running so if the
person in whose favour prescription is running is outside of the Republic of South
Africa is married to the person against a prescription is running or is a member of the
governing body of a juristic person against your prescription is running do you need
a chain of events will reply now let us now look at what happens under the 1969 act
should I person fall into one of these two categories look at the rules regarding
postponement under the 1969 act ladies and gentlemen so these rules apply the
moment a person falls into one of two categories of the 1969 act which I discussed
under the previous slide so should I person fall into one of these two categories a
unique chain of events curse and the 1969 act regulates this chain of events as
follows it provides that if the prescription. Would have been completed would it not
for the existence of an impediment namely when a person falls into another two
categories if the prescription. Would have been completed but fourth existence of an
impediment before all on or within three years after the day on which the impediment
fell away the prescription. Will not be completed before the completion of an
additional three years after the impediment fell away now this is very academic and
lawyers and even academics struggle to understand precisely what the 1969 act
means in this regard for this reason I'm going to use a number of examples to
explain this position so let's look here at the example on this slide should be what
this what the position under the 1969 act means in practise is that should there be an
impediment under the 1969 akzo should a person fall into one of the two categories
of the 1969 act which I have which I which I mentioned so even if betterment exists
and prescription would have been completed if it were not for the existence of the
impediment prescription will have will continue to run so if prescription would have
completed say in this example in 1980 nineteen 85 or 1989 the completion of
prescription will be postponed until the year when they pediment falls away so he
pediment falls away in line teen 90 so prescription will be postponed until it falls
away in 1990 plus an additional three years so prescription will continue to run for an
additional three years after the impediment fell away so let's say the impediment
would have sorry it's a prescription would have completed in 1980 but because there
is an impediment which exists the completion of prescription is postponed and it is
postponed until the impediment falls away in 1990 and according to the 1969 act
prescription will only be completed three years after the date on which the
impediment fell away this means that the civil possessor must possess the property
until 1993 to acquire it through quizzer prescription because the impediment fell
away in 1990 if the prescription. Would have ended during the same year in which
the impediment pulls away the civil possessor must possess it for an additional three
years from the year in which the impediment falls away so if prescription would have
completed in 1990 the civil position must possess the property for an additional three
years that is until 1993 to acquire the property through acquisitive prescription then
finally ladies and gentlemen if the prescription. Would have been completed in 1991
nineteen 92 or 1993 where it not for the impediment which in this context falls away
in 1990 the civil possessor must continue to possess the property for an additional
three years after the impediment falls away this means that if prescription would
have been completed in 1991 and the impediment fell away in 1990 the civil
possessor must possess the property for an additional three years after the date on
which the impediment falls away so three years after 1990 1993 so the civil
possessor will then have to possess the property four 1992 and 1993 as well as
1993 is 3 years after the date on which the impediment fell away which in this
context is 1990 if the civil possessor possessed the property until 1992 and they paid
him and fell away in 1990 the civil possessor must possess the property for the for
three years after the pediment fell away which in this context is 1993 and if the civil
possessor would have acquired the property in 1993 and the impediment fell away in
1990 they visible possessor will acquire the property in 1993 an important message
realise that there isn't intimate is that the rules under the 1969 act only apply if the
prescription. Would have been completed before the impediment fell away or during
the year in which the impediment falls away or within three years after the
impediment falls away early then do the rules of the 1969 act apply if the
prescription. Would have completed more than three years after the impediment falls
away in other words if the prescription. Would have been completed in 1990 four
5678 and nine in 2000 then no postponement would take place this is because the
rules under the 1969 act do not cater for these types of situations so should you get
a question on this part of the work at some point always ask yourself when does the
prescription. When Woodley defended were it not for the impediment if it would it
have ended before the impediment falls away because then the 1969 act regulated
the situation is the prescription period would have come to to an end during the
same year when the impediment