Magagula v Minister of Safety and Security (33714/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 148 (17 November 2009)

Magagula v Minister of Safety and Security (33714/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 148 (17 November 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the previous order requiring a formal application for condonation for the late filing of the statutory notice. The plaintiff's submission of an unsigned and unserved amended replication did not constitute a valid application, nor did the evidence in the particulars of claim suffice as evidence under oath. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct in setting the matter down for hearing without bringing the required application was slack and rendered the matter not ripe for hearing. Consequently, the matter was removed from the roll, and the plaintiff was ordered to bring a proper condonation application within ten days and to pay...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 148
Parties
Plaintiff: O Magagula; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2009
Case Number
33714/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Determination of Special Plea and Condonation Application
Outcome
Matter removed from the roll due to plaintiff's failure to bring condonation application as ordered.
Judges
Phatudi
Legal Topics
Condonation Application, Late Filing of Notice, Unlawful Arrest, Special Plea, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against State
Civil Procedure Delict Condonation Application Late Filing of Notice Unlawful Arrest Special Plea Institution of Legal Proceedings Against State

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O Magagula

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Determination of Special Plea and Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff complied with the statutory requirement to file notice of intended legal proceedings against an organ of state within the prescribed period.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's failure to bring a formal condonation application for late filing of notice justifies removal of the matter from the roll.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's conduct warrants a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the previous order requiring a formal application for condonation for the late filing of the statutory notice. The plaintiff's submission of an unsigned and unserved amended replication did not constitute a valid application, nor did the evidence in the particulars of claim suffice as evidence under oath. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct in setting the matter down for hearing without bringing the required application was slack and rendered the matter not ripe for hearing. Consequently, the matter was removed from the roll, and the plaintiff was ordered to bring a proper condonation application within ten days and to pay...

Court Disposition

Matter removed from the roll due to plaintiff's failure to bring condonation application as ordered.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to bring an application, supported by affidavit, for condonation for late filing of notice as envisaged in terms of Section 3(4)(a) of Act 40 of 2002 within 10 days from date hereof.