Augustyn v Minister of Defence (918/2011) [2017] ZANCHC 59 (6 October 2017)

Augustyn v Minister of Defence (918/2011) [2017] ZANCHC 59 (6 October 2017)

The court found that the debt in question arose from money allocated by the State for the applicant's training, subject to agreed conditions. Upon breach, the amount became due to the State, satisfying the requirements of section 11(b) of the Prescription Act. The court held that the main judgment adequately addressed the application of Holeni v Land Agricultural Development Bank of SA and the relevant statutory provisions. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the facts and law were correctly applied. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZANCHC 59
Parties
Applicant: Hein Augustyn; Respondent: Minister of Defence
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2017
Case Number
918/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Leave to Appeal, Special Plea, Debt Owed to State
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Leave to Appeal Special Plea Debt Owed to State

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hein Augustyn

Applicant

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim falls under section 11(b) or (d) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the debt owed by the applicant to the respondent prescribes after three years or fifteen years.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act are met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the debt in question arose from money allocated by the State for the applicant's training, subject to agreed conditions. Upon breach, the amount became due to the State, satisfying the requirements of section 11(b) of the Prescription Act. The court held that the main judgment adequately addressed the application of Holeni v Land Agricultural Development Bank of SA and the relevant statutory provisions. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the facts and law were correctly applied. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.