De Wet v Barron: Don’t Let Time Cost Your Property Rights

The recent High Court judgment in De Wet v Barron and Others (Case No. 796/2024, Western Cape Division) serves as a stark reminder of how time limits can make or break a case in property law.

The Background

In July 2014, Desmond Matthew De Wet bought an undivided half-share in a Stellenbosch property from Mark George Barron. The deed of sale was signed, the price was paid, and the parties agreed on how transfer would take place. Yet, nearly a decade later, De Wet was still waiting for the property to be transferred into his name.

De Wet eventually approached the High Court, asking for an order of specific performance: compelling Barron to transfer the half-share. Standing in the way was one major legal hurdle — extinctive prescription under the Prescription Act.

What is Prescription?

In South African law, a claim does not last forever. If you sit on your rights for too long, the law considers your claim to have prescribed — meaning it becomes unenforceable. For most contractual claims, the prescription period is three years.

The clock starts ticking when the debt becomes “due” — in this case, when De Wet could have demanded transfer of the property. Unless prescription is interrupted (for example, by an acknowledgement of debt or issuing summons), the claim falls away once the period lapses.

The Dispute

De Wet argued that prescription had not yet begun, or at least had been interrupted:

1. Condition precedent: He claimed that transfer could only happen once Barron’s mortgage bond with Standard Bank was fully paid off, and since that had not yet happened, the clock had not started.

2. Payments as interruption: He further argued that payments toward municipal arrears (as agreed in the contract) kept prescription alive until at least 2021.

3. Reciprocal obligations: Lastly, he suggested that the ongoing duties of both parties prevented prescription from running.

Barron disagreed. He said the contract was enforceable long ago and that De Wet had simply waited too long.

The Court’s Findings

The Court, per Moosa AJ, sided with Barron:

1. The deed of sale created an enforceable right from the start. The mortgage clause did not delay De Wet’s right to claim transfer — it merely reflected standard practice that the bond would be paid off by the date of transfer.

2. Payments toward municipal arrears did not interrupt prescription in a way that extended the three-year period.

3.   Reciprocal obligations in the agreement also did not stop prescription from running.

In short, De Wet should have acted much earlier. Because he waited nearly nine years before formally demanding transfer, his claim had prescribed. The application was dismissed with costs.

Why This Matters

This case highlights three important lessons for property buyers and sellers:

1. Don’t delay enforcing your rights: Even if practical obstacles exist, legal claims have strict lifespans.

2. Read the fine print carefully: Unless a contract clearly postpones your right to claim, prescription starts as soon as the contract is signed, and the obligations arise.

3. Interrupt prescription when necessary: A formal acknowledgement of debt or legal action can stop the clock. Silence and delay will not.

Property transactions often take time, but the law does not wait indefinitely. As De Wet v Barron shows, waiting too long to enforce your rights can mean losing them altogether. If you’re uncertain about when to act, consult one of our Attorneys before time runs out.

Written by: Maret Carroll
Moderated and approved by: Stacey Barnard

‍