Klue v Minister Of Justice And Correctional Services (1807/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 119 (18 April 2023)

Klue v Minister Of Justice And Correctional Services (1807/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 119 (18 April 2023)

The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action arose when he was sentenced by the trial magistrate on 3 December 2013 and, at the latest, when his application for leave to appeal was dismissed on 27 January 2014. The plaintiff had knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim at those times, as evidenced by his persistent allegations of judicial error throughout subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in April 2020 did not create a new cause of action but merely confirmed what the plaintiff already knew. The claim against the High Court judges arose on 9 March 2018 when they dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff failed to serve statutory notice within six...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 119
Parties
Plaintiff: Danie Klue; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2023
Case Number
1807/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Special Pleas on Prescription and Statutory Notice Argued Before Merits
Outcome
Both special pleas upheld; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Loubser
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Cause of Action Accrual, Judicial Negligence, Statutory Notice Requirement
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Cause of Action Accrual Judicial Negligence Statutory Notice Requirement

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danie Klue

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Special Pleas on Prescription and Statutory Notice Argued Before Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant arise for purposes of prescription and statutory notice?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff comply with the statutory notice requirements under Act 40 of 2002?
  3. 3 Has the plaintiff's claim become prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action arose when he was sentenced by the trial magistrate on 3 December 2013 and, at the latest, when his application for leave to appeal was dismissed on 27 January 2014. The plaintiff had knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim at those times, as evidenced by his persistent allegations of judicial error throughout subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in April 2020 did not create a new cause of action but merely confirmed what the plaintiff already knew. The claim against the High Court judges arose on 9 March 2018 when they dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff failed to serve statutory notice within six...

Court Disposition

Both special pleas upheld; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea relating to non-compliance with the provisions of Act 40 of 2002 is upheld.
  • The special plea relating to prescription is upheld.