Makhwelo v Minister of Safety And Security (2013/26724) [2015] ZAGPJHC 10; 2017 (1) SA 274 (GJ) (3 February 2015)
The court found that the applicant's notice of intention to institute legal proceedings was timeously delivered, as the debt in a claim for wrongful arrest and detention becomes due upon release or termination of prosecution, not at the date of arrest. The respondent's late filing of a special plea created the urgency, and it cannot claim prejudice from the abridged time limits for answering the condonation application. The respondent failed to file an answering affidavit or demonstrate any genuine prejudice. Even if the notice was late, condonation would be granted as good cause exists and no unreasonable prejudice was shown. The urgent motion court was the appropriate forum given the...
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPJHC 10
- Parties
- Applicant: Busani Makhwelo; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 3 February 2015
- Case Number
- 2013/26724
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Condonation of Late Statutory Notice Prior to Trial
- Outcome
- Application granted. The notice of intention to institute legal proceedings was timeously given, or alternatively, condonation is granted for late delivery. The first special dilatory plea is disposed of. Costs awarded to the applicant.
- Judges
- Spilg
- Legal Topics
- Institution of Legal Proceedings Against State, Condonation, Wrongful Arrest and Detention, Prescription, Urgent Motion Practice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Busani Makhwelo
Applicant
Minister of Safety and Security
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation of Late Statutory Notice Prior to Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's notice of intention to institute legal proceedings against the respondent was timeously delivered in terms of section 3(2)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
- 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late delivery of the statutory notice if it was not timeously delivered.
- 3 Whether the urgent motion court is the appropriate forum to hear the condonation application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's notice of intention to institute legal proceedings was timeously delivered, as the debt in a claim for wrongful arrest and detention becomes due upon release or termination of prosecution, not at the date of arrest. The respondent's late filing of a special plea created the urgency, and it cannot claim prejudice from the abridged time limits for answering the condonation application. The respondent failed to file an answering affidavit or demonstrate any genuine prejudice. Even if the notice was late, condonation would be granted as good cause exists and no unreasonable prejudice was shown. The urgent motion court was the appropriate forum given the...
Court Disposition
Application granted. The notice of intention to institute legal proceedings was timeously given, or alternatively, condonation is granted for late delivery. The first special dilatory plea is disposed of. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Orders
- It is declared that the notice of intention to institute legal proceedings against the respondent in terms of section 3(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 was timeously given, or alternatively, condonation is granted for late delivery.
- The first special dilatory plea is disposed of.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment