Domingos and Another v the Minister of Police and Another (2020/18097) [2023] ZAGPJHC 583 (26 May 2023)

Domingos and Another v the Minister of Police and Another (2020/18097) [2023] ZAGPJHC 583 (26 May 2023)

The court found that the applicants were detained for a significant period and only became free to seek legal advice after their release in June 2019. The letters of demand were sent within three months of release, and the respondents did not demonstrate any unreasonable prejudice resulting from the delay. The debt had not prescribed, and good cause existed for the late notice, given the circumstances of detention and subsequent prompt action. The court condoned both the late filing of the answering affidavit and the applicants' failure to serve notice timeously under section 3 of the Act.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 583
Parties
Applicant: Joao Naves Domingos; Applicant: John Mathe Nkomokazihlatshwa; Respondent: Minister of Police, NO; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Case Number
2020/18097
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under Section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Application for condonation granted.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Act, Condonation, Prescription, Unlawful Arrest, Continuous Delict
Civil Procedure Delict Institution of Legal Proceedings Act Condonation Prescription Unlawful Arrest Continuous Delict

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joao Naves Domingos

Applicant

John Mathe Nkomokazihlatshwa

Applicant

Minister of Police, NO

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under Section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' failure to serve a notice of demand timeously in terms of section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, 40 of 2002, should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether good cause exists for the late notice and whether the respondents were unreasonably prejudiced by the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the debt has been extinguished by prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were detained for a significant period and only became free to seek legal advice after their release in June 2019. The letters of demand were sent within three months of release, and the respondents did not demonstrate any unreasonable prejudice resulting from the delay. The debt had not prescribed, and good cause existed for the late notice, given the circumstances of detention and subsequent prompt action. The court condoned both the late filing of the answering affidavit and the applicants' failure to serve notice timeously under section 3 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted.

Orders

  • The late filing of the answering affidavit is condoned, with no order as to costs of the application for late filing.
  • The applicants’ failure to serve a notice of demand timeously in accordance with section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, 40 of 2002, is condoned.