Mhlongo v Commissioner for SARS and Others (26246/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 735 (21 September 2015)
The court held that the requirements for condonation under section 3(4)(b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act are conjunctive: the debt must not be extinguished by prescription, good cause must exist for the failure to serve notice, and the organ of state must not be unreasonably prejudiced. The applicant's claim for malicious prosecution (Claim A) had not prescribed, and she provided a bona fide explanation for her delay, demonstrating prospects of success and lack of unreasonable prejudice to the respondents. Therefore, condonation was granted for Claim A. However, the claim for defamation (Claim B) was found to have prescribed, as the applicant...
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 735
- Parties
- Applicant: Charlotte Connie Mhlongo; Respondent: Commissioner for SARS; Respondent: Andrew Seshoka; Respondent: Fhulufhelo Mutavhatsindi
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 September 2015
- Case Number
- 26246/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
- Outcome
- Condonation granted for late notice in respect of malicious prosecution claim; condonation denied for defamation claim due to prescription; costs to be determined in the main action.
- Judges
- K.L.A.M Manamela
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Malicious Prosecution, Defamation, Prescription, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charlotte Connie Mhlongo
Applicant
Commissioner for SARS
Respondent
Andrew Seshoka
Respondent
Fhulufhelo Mutavhatsindi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the applicant's late service of notice under section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act for claims of malicious prosecution and defamation.
- 2 Whether the claim for defamation has been extinguished by prescription.
- 3 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in serving the notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the requirements for condonation under section 3(4)(b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act are conjunctive: the debt must not be extinguished by prescription, good cause must exist for the failure to serve notice, and the organ of state must not be unreasonably prejudiced. The applicant's claim for malicious prosecution (Claim A) had not prescribed, and she provided a bona fide explanation for her delay, demonstrating prospects of success and lack of unreasonable prejudice to the respondents. Therefore, condonation was granted for Claim A. However, the claim for defamation (Claim B) was found to have prescribed, as the applicant...
Court Disposition
Condonation granted for late notice in respect of malicious prosecution claim; condonation denied for defamation claim due to prescription; costs to be determined in the main action.
Orders
- Condonation is granted for the applicant's late compliance with sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act for the claim of malicious prosecution.
- Condonation is denied for the applicant's late compliance with sections 3(1) and (2) of the Act for the claim of defamation, as the claim is extinguished by prescription.
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