Malefane v Buffalo City Municipality and Others (675/2008) [2014] ZAECGHC 97 (6 November 2014)

Malefane v Buffalo City Municipality and Others (675/2008) [2014] ZAECGHC 97 (6 November 2014)

The court found that the plaintiff and her assistant, both officers of the court, credibly testified that the requisite notices were drafted and sent by registered mail prior to 6 April 2005. The absence of returned mail and the circumstances of the office fire explained the lack of documentary proof. The defendants...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAECGHC 97
Parties
Plaintiff: Pumza Malefane; Defendant: Buffalo City Municipality; Defendant: Answin Gregory Esben; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2014
Case Number
675/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Pleas on Prescription and Notice Compliance Separated From Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Special pleas in respect of claim 1 are dismissed with costs. Special plea in respect of claim 2 is upheld with costs and plaintiff's action against first and second defendants in respect of claim 2 is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pickering
Legal Topics
Prescription, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Malicious Prosecution, Unlawful Arrest and Detention
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Malicious Prosecution Unlawful Arrest and Detention

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pumza Malefane

Plaintiff

Buffalo City Municipality

Defendant

Answin Gregory Esben

Defendant

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Pleas on Prescription and Notice Compliance Separated From Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff complied with the notice requirements under the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act for claim 1.
  2. 2 Whether claim 1 (unlawful arrest and detention) had prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether claim 2 (malicious prosecution) had prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and her assistant, both officers of the court, credibly testified that the requisite notices were drafted and sent by registered mail prior to 6 April 2005. The absence of returned mail and the circumstances of the office fire explained the lack of documentary proof. The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving non-receipt, and service was deemed effected. Accordingly, claim 1 had not prescribed as the summons interrupted prescription. For claim 2, the amendment introducing malicious prosecution was only effected more than three years after the cause of action arose, and neither the notice of intention to amend nor the granting of leave to...

Court Disposition

Special pleas in respect of claim 1 are dismissed with costs. Special plea in respect of claim 2 is upheld with costs and plaintiff's action against first and second defendants in respect of claim 2 is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special pleas in respect of claim 1 are dismissed with costs.
  • The special plea in respect of claim 2 is upheld with costs and plaintiff's action against first and second defendants in respect of claim 2 is dismissed with costs.