Joubert and Another v City of Tshwane, Metropolitan Municipality and Others (94370/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 3 (14 January 2021)

Joubert and Another v City of Tshwane, Metropolitan Municipality and Others (94370/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 3 (14 January 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements in relation to Claim A, as the initial notice did not refer to the events of 2 January 2015. The explanation for the delay was contradictory and lacked bona fides, with the applicants blaming their attorneys but also asserting that the initial notice was sufficient. No complaints were lodged against the attorneys, and the applicants failed to demonstrate a genuine intent to prosecute the claim. The respondents were unreasonably prejudiced by the delay, as they could not investigate the events years later due to lack of detail and missing information. The requirements for condonation under section...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 3
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Johannes Joubert; Applicant: Catharina Elizabeth Jean; Respondent: The City of Tshwane, Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Municipal Council, City of Tshwane; Respondent: The Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: The National Commissioner of the South African Police Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 January 2021
Case Number
94370/16
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Statutory Notice Requirements Prior to Main Action
Outcome
Application for condonation in respect of Claim A dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Condonation, Statutory Notice Requirement, Prescription, Good Cause, Unreasonable Prejudice
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Condonation Statutory Notice Requirement Prescription Good Cause Unreasonable Prejudice

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Johannes Joubert

Applicant

Catharina Elizabeth Jean

Applicant

The City of Tshwane, Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Municipal Council, City of Tshwane

Respondent

The Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

The National Commissioner of the South African Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Statutory Notice Requirements Prior to Main Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' failure to comply with section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 in relation to Claim A should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the debt arising from Claim A had been extinguished by prescription.
  3. 3 Whether good cause exists for the applicants' failure to serve notice within the statutory period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements in relation to Claim A, as the initial notice did not refer to the events of 2 January 2015. The explanation for the delay was contradictory and lacked bona fides, with the applicants blaming their attorneys but also asserting that the initial notice was sufficient. No complaints were lodged against the attorneys, and the applicants failed to demonstrate a genuine intent to prosecute the claim. The respondents were unreasonably prejudiced by the delay, as they could not investigate the events years later due to lack of detail and missing information. The requirements for condonation under section...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation in respect of Claim A dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for non-compliance with section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 in relation to Claim A is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.