
In this matter the plaintiff instituted action against the first and other defendants, as a result of her having been injured during the course of a welcoming event arranged by so-called mentors appointed and / or employed by the defendants.
The first defendant delivered a speal plea of non-joinder and misjoinder, following which the plaintiff successfully joined the third defendant, who subsequently sought to raise a special plea of prescription, which was the subject matter of this judgment.
The court held, per Adhikari, AJ, that whilst the third defendant had correctly accepted that it bore the onus of establishing prescription of the claim, the plaintiff bore the onus of establishing that the running of prescription had been interrupted by service of the summons on it. It further held that the third defendant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff knew that it was the entity that controlled the activities of the students at the residence at the time of the event, that it controlled and / or employed the mentors, or that the plaintiff could have acquired such knowledge with reasonable care. The special plea of prescription was dismissed.
For a copy of the full judgment click here.