Citi v Minister of Higher Education and Training (34790/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 680 (21 September 2018)

Citi v Minister of Higher Education and Training (34790/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 680 (21 September 2018)

The court found that the applicant's cause of action arose on 23 May 2013 when he first applied for the diploma and became aware of the respondent's role as the relevant organ of state. The applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to serve notice within six months and did not show good cause for the delay. The court determined that the claim was instituted more than three years after the cause of action arose and was therefore prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. Furthermore, the respondent would suffer prejudice due to the elapsed time and potential loss of witnesses. Even if the respondent's answering affidavit was defective, the applicant's claim...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 680
Parties
Applicant: Bafana Freddie Citi; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education and Training
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Case Number
34790/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Determination of Prescription
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
M J Mosopa
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against State, Prescription Act, Condonation, Good Cause, Prejudice to State
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against State Prescription Act Condonation Good Cause Prejudice 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bafana Freddie Citi

Applicant

Minister of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Determination of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim has prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether good cause exists for the applicant's failure to serve statutory notice according to section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
  3. 3 Whether the organ of state was unreasonably prejudiced by such failure.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's cause of action arose on 23 May 2013 when he first applied for the diploma and became aware of the respondent's role as the relevant organ of state. The applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to serve notice within six months and did not show good cause for the delay. The court determined that the claim was instituted more than three years after the cause of action arose and was therefore prescribed under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. Furthermore, the respondent would suffer prejudice due to the elapsed time and potential loss of witnesses. Even if the respondent's answering affidavit was defective, the applicant's claim...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Applicant is ordered to pay respondent's costs.