Avenir Holding (Pty) Ltd v Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport, Mpumalanga Provincial Government (4359/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 45 (10 June 2022)
The applicant failed to show good cause for its delay in issuing the required notice to the respondents. The explanation provided for the delay, including reliance on the Covid-19 lockdown, was insufficient, as correspondence continued during the relevant period and no adequate reason was given for not dispatching the notice via email or after operations resumed. Furthermore, the applicant did not attach the cession agreement or its alleged extension, and the respondents' evidence demonstrated that the cession agreement was limited in scope and had lapsed upon completion of the work and payment. The applicant therefore lacked locus standi to claim against the respondents, and there were...
- Citation
- [2022] ZAMPMBHC 45
- Parties
- Applicant: Avenir Holding (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport, Mpumalanga Provincial Government; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport; Respondent: Ntsangalala Holding (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 June 2022
- Case Number
- 4359/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Condonation Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- TV Ratshibvumo
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Locus Standi, Cession Agreement, Prospects of Success
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Avenir Holding (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport, Mpumalanga Provincial Government
Respondent
MEC for the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport
Respondent
Ntsangalala Holding (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for its failure to issue a notice of intention to institute legal proceedings against the respondents as required by section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant has prospects of success in its claim against the respondents, considering the existence and scope of the cession agreement.
- 3 Whether the applicant has locus standi to institute proceedings against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to show good cause for its delay in issuing the required notice to the respondents. The explanation provided for the delay, including reliance on the Covid-19 lockdown, was insufficient, as correspondence continued during the relevant period and no adequate reason was given for not dispatching the notice via email or after operations resumed. Furthermore, the applicant did not attach the cession agreement or its alleged extension, and the respondents' evidence demonstrated that the cession agreement was limited in scope and had lapsed upon completion of the work and payment. The applicant therefore lacked locus standi to claim against the respondents, and there were...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment