Mabusela v The Minister of Safety and Security (67322/10) [2015] ZAGPPHC 801 (24 November 2015)

Mabusela v The Minister of Safety and Security (67322/10) [2015] ZAGPPHC 801 (24 November 2015)

The court found that the applicant's failure to give notice in terms of section 3(2) of Act 40 of 2002 was attributable to his lack of knowledge of the statutory requirement, which was not disputed by the respondent. The court accepted that good cause for the delay had been shown and that no prejudice was claimed by the police. Furthermore, the court considered the arbitration award, which suggested the applicant's innocence regarding the allegations of robbery, and concluded that there were reasonable prospects of success in the main action. Accordingly, the court granted condonation for the late notice and leave to institute action against the defendant.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 801
Parties
Applicant: James Frans Mabusela; Respondent: The Minister of Safety and Security N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2015
Case Number
67322/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to Institute Action
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to institute action granted.
Judges
M F Legodi
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Notice, Institution of Proceedings Against State, Prescription, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Notice Institution of Proceedings Against State Prescription Prospects of Success

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

James Frans Mabusela

Applicant

The Minister of Safety and Security N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to Institute Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's failure to give notice in terms of section 3(2) of Act 40 of 2002 should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to institute action against the defendant under section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success in the main action against the police.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's failure to give notice in terms of section 3(2) of Act 40 of 2002 was attributable to his lack of knowledge of the statutory requirement, which was not disputed by the respondent. The court accepted that good cause for the delay had been shown and that no prejudice was claimed by the police. Furthermore, the court considered the arbitration award, which suggested the applicant's innocence regarding the allegations of robbery, and concluded that there were reasonable prospects of success in the main action. Accordingly, the court granted condonation for the late notice and leave to institute action against the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to institute action granted.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's failure to give notice in terms of section 3(2) of Act 40 of 2002 is condoned.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to institute or proceed with an action against the defendant in terms of section 3(4)(c) of Act 40 of 2002.