Gaobepe v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (94619/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 396 (3 April 2025)

Gaobepe v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (94619/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 396 (3 April 2025)

The court found that the applicant delivered the statutory notice four months late, but the delay was not inordinate and did not defeat the purpose of the notice. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including his status as an inmate and reliance on his attorneys. The debt had not prescribed, as summons was issued within the three-year period prescribed by the Prescription Act. The respondent failed to demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay. The court exercised its discretion to condone the non-compliance with section 3 of the Act, finding that condonation was in the interests of justice and that the matter should proceed to trial for adjudication...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 396
Parties
Applicant: Otsile Rhuel Gaobepe; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 April 2025
Case Number
94619/2016
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation Following Special Plea to Damages Claim
Outcome
Application for condonation granted with costs.
Judges
JM Matsemela
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Condonation, Prescription, Unlawful Assault, Statutory Notice Requirements
Civil Procedure Delict Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Condonation Prescription Unlawful Assault Statutory Notice Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otsile Rhuel Gaobepe

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation Following Special Plea to Damages Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's failure to deliver statutory notice within the prescribed period under section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in delivering the notice prejudiced the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation and demonstrated good cause for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant delivered the statutory notice four months late, but the delay was not inordinate and did not defeat the purpose of the notice. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including his status as an inmate and reliance on his attorneys. The debt had not prescribed, as summons was issued within the three-year period prescribed by the Prescription Act. The respondent failed to demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay. The court exercised its discretion to condone the non-compliance with section 3 of the Act, finding that condonation was in the interests of justice and that the matter should proceed to trial for adjudication...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.