Masina v Minister of Police (22851/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 445 (4 August 2017)

Masina v Minister of Police (22851/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 445 (4 August 2017)

The court found that the applicant only became aware of the identity of the respondent as a joint wrongdoer in February 2013, and instructed attorneys in June 2014. The delay in transmitting the notice was due to administrative oversight by the attorneys, not negligence by the applicant. The respondent did not dispute the applicant's lack of knowledge prior to February 2013. The court held that the claim had not prescribed, as the period from acquiring knowledge to instituting summons was less than three years. The requirements for condonation under section 3(4)(b) of the Act were satisfied: the debt was not extinguished by prescription, good cause existed for the failure, and the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 445
Parties
Plaintiff: MJ Masina; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2017
Case Number
22851/2015
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation for late notice is granted.
Judges
Raulinga
Legal Topics
Condonation, Prescription Act, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Late Notice, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Condonation Prescription Act Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Late Notice Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MJ Masina

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

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 late compliance with section 3(1) and (2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim has been extinguished by prescription under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in transmitting notice was due to negligence or administrative oversight.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant only became aware of the identity of the respondent as a joint wrongdoer in February 2013, and instructed attorneys in June 2014. The delay in transmitting the notice was due to administrative oversight by the attorneys, not negligence by the applicant. The respondent did not dispute the applicant's lack of knowledge prior to February 2013. The court held that the claim had not prescribed, as the period from acquiring knowledge to instituting summons was less than three years. The requirements for condonation under section 3(4)(b) of the Act were satisfied: the debt was not extinguished by prescription, good cause existed for the failure, and the...

Court Disposition

Condonation for late notice is granted.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the applicant's late compliance with section 3(1) and (2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.