Human v Minister of Safety and Security (37154/08) [2020] ZAGPPHC 795 (20 October 2020)

Human v Minister of Safety and Security (37154/08) [2020] ZAGPPHC 795 (20 October 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim constituted a new and distinct cause of action, separate from the original claim of malicious prosecution. The right of action for deprivation of freedom, discomfort, and contumelia, as pleaded, arose from the alleged false information given by SAPS members during bail proceedings, resulting in the plaintiff's incarceration from 1994 to 2000. The court held that the debt became due when the plaintiff was released on bail on 23 December 2000, and prescription commenced from that date. Summons was served on 7 August 2008, after the debt had prescribed. The application for postponement to file a Rule 28 amendment was refused...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 795
Parties
Plaintiff: Andries Human; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Case Number
37154/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Pleas and Application for Postponement
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Malicious Prosecution, Unlawful Arrest, Rule 28 Amendment, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Special Plea
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Malicious Prosecution Unlawful Arrest Rule 28 Amendment Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Special Plea

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Human

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Special Pleas and Application for Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be granted a postponement to file a Rule 28 amendment and an application for condonation under s3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
  3. 3 Whether the amended particulars of claim constituted a new and distinct cause of action from the original claim of malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim constituted a new and distinct cause of action, separate from the original claim of malicious prosecution. The right of action for deprivation of freedom, discomfort, and contumelia, as pleaded, arose from the alleged false information given by SAPS members during bail proceedings, resulting in the plaintiff's incarceration from 1994 to 2000. The court held that the debt became due when the plaintiff was released on bail on 23 December 2000, and prescription commenced from that date. Summons was served on 7 August 2008, after the debt had prescribed. The application for postponement to file a Rule 28 amendment was refused...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's first special plea of prescription is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.