Golekane Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others v MEC for the Transport, Road and Community Safety and Another (1807/2011) [2012] ZANWHC 20 (17 May 2012)

Golekane Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others v MEC for the Transport, Road and Community Safety and Another (1807/2011) [2012] ZANWHC 20 (17 May 2012)

The court found that the applicants' claims had not prescribed, as prescription commenced in September 2009 when the contracts terminated, and the three-year period would only expire in September 2012. The applicants provided explanations for their failure to serve notice, which, although weak, were outweighed by the strong merits of their cases and their lack of resources. The respondents failed to demonstrate any unreasonable prejudice resulting from the delay. The court held that the opposition to the condonation application was unwarranted and granted condonation for the late service of notice, ordering the respondents to pay the costs of opposition.

Citation
[2012] ZANWHC 20
Parties
Applicant: Golekane Projects (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mmathato Projects CC; Applicant: Momantu Development Project CC; Applicant: Ikaneng Rona Trading Enterprise CC; Applicant: Sesupo Trading Enterprise CC; Applicant: Kwapele Construction CC; Applicant: Add Up Trading Enterprise CC; Applicant: Olihile Distributors CC; Applicant: Lebokedi Construction & Projects CC; Applicant: Moipoledi Business Enterprise CC; Applicant: SEBL Trading 24 CC; Applicant: Mashmac Construction CC; Applicant: Rebaone Electrical and Construction CC; Applicant: Machabo Projects CC; Applicant: Factotum Marketing and Promotions CC; Applicant: Morekgomo Business Enterprise CC; Applicant: Bontobe Communication CC; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Transport, Road and Community Safety; Respondent: L F Masenya Chief Directorate
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Case Number
1807/2011
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation Under Section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation granted for the applicants' failure to serve notice timeously under section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Prescription, Public Contracts
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Condonation Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Prescription Public Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Golekane Projects (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mmathato Projects CC

Applicant

Momantu Development Project CC

Applicant

Ikaneng Rona Trading Enterprise CC

Applicant

Sesupo Trading Enterprise CC

Applicant

Kwapele Construction CC

Applicant

Add Up Trading Enterprise CC

Applicant

Olihile Distributors CC

Applicant

Lebokedi Construction & Projects CC

Applicant

Moipoledi Business Enterprise CC

Applicant

SEBL Trading 24 CC

Applicant

Mashmac Construction CC

Applicant

Rebaone Electrical and Construction CC

Applicant

Machabo Projects CC

Applicant

Factotum Marketing and Promotions CC

Applicant

Morekgomo Business Enterprise CC

Applicant

Bontobe Communication CC

Applicant

MEC for the Department of Transport, Road and Community Safety

Respondent

L F Masenya Chief Directorate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation Under Section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claims against the respondents have prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for their failure to serve the required notice under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have been unreasonably prejudiced by the applicants' failure to serve notice timeously.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' claims had not prescribed, as prescription commenced in September 2009 when the contracts terminated, and the three-year period would only expire in September 2012. The applicants provided explanations for their failure to serve notice, which, although weak, were outweighed by the strong merits of their cases and their lack of resources. The respondents failed to demonstrate any unreasonable prejudice resulting from the delay. The court held that the opposition to the condonation application was unwarranted and granted condonation for the late service of notice, ordering the respondents to pay the costs of opposition.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the applicants' failure to serve notice timeously under section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.

Orders

  • The applicants' failure to timeously serve the notice contemplated by section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 is condoned.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of opposition.