Lushaba v Minister of Police (046797/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 86 (16 March 2018)

Lushaba v Minister of Police (046797/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 86 (16 March 2018)

The court found that the applicant's delay in giving notice was due to his lack of legal knowledge and only became aware of the requirement after his acquittal and consultation with his attorney. The application was unopposed, and there was no evidence that the debt had prescribed or that the respondent would suffer prejudice if condonation was granted. The interests of justice required that condonation be granted to allow the applicant to proceed with his claim.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 86
Parties
Applicant: Thulani Lindelani Lushaba; Respondent: The Minister of Police
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Case Number
046797/17
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the notice is granted. The applicant is granted leave to proceed with his action against the respondent. No order as to costs.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Act, Late Notice, Prescription, Prejudice to Respondent
Civil Procedure Condonation Institution of Legal Proceedings Act Late Notice Prescription Prejudice to Respondent

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulani Lindelani Lushaba

Applicant

The Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the applicant's failure to give notice to the respondent within the prescribed period under section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in giving notice is excusable under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the granting of condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in giving notice was due to his lack of legal knowledge and only became aware of the requirement after his acquittal and consultation with his attorney. The application was unopposed, and there was no evidence that the debt had prescribed or that the respondent would suffer prejudice if condonation was granted. The interests of justice required that condonation be granted to allow the applicant to proceed with his claim.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the notice is granted. The applicant is granted leave to proceed with his action against the respondent. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the notice in terms of section 3(4)(a) and (b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 is granted.
  • The applicant is granted leave to proceed with his action against the respondent.