Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Pennington and Another (162/2022) [2023] ZASCA 51 (14 April 2023)

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Pennington and Another (162/2022) [2023] ZASCA 51 (14 April 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' claim for damages had prescribed. The respondents had sufficient facts at their disposal to found a cause of action by April 2012, when the first respondent launched an application to set aside his conviction and sentence due to the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the appeal. Prescription commenced running at the latest from that date, and the claim prescribed three years later, in May 2015. As the summons was only issued in June 2016, the claim was already prescribed. The court found that the particulars of claim were unclear and did not comply with procedural rules, but the only remaining claim was for...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 51
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa; Appellant: Minister of Police of the Republic of South Africa; Appellant: Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Franklin D Pennington; Respondent: Gail Jackson Pennington
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Case Number
162/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria; Special Plea of Prescription and Non Joinder
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription succeeds; respondents' claim dismissed.
Judges
Ponnan, Mocumie, Weiner, Goosen, Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Special Plea, Malicious Prosecution, Damages Claim, Non Joinder
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Special Plea Malicious Prosecution Damages Claim Non Joinder

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa

Appellant

Minister of Police of the Republic of South Africa

Appellant

Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of South Africa

Appellant

Franklin D Pennington

Respondent

Gail Jackson Pennington

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria; Special Plea of Prescription and Non Joinder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' claim for damages had prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents had sufficient facts at their disposal to found a cause of action before June 2016.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to join the National Prosecuting Authority or National Director of Public Prosecutions rendered the claim unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' claim for damages had prescribed. The respondents had sufficient facts at their disposal to found a cause of action by April 2012, when the first respondent launched an application to set aside his conviction and sentence due to the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the appeal. Prescription commenced running at the latest from that date, and the claim prescribed three years later, in May 2015. As the summons was only issued in June 2016, the claim was already prescribed. The court found that the particulars of claim were unclear and did not comply with procedural rules, but the only remaining claim was for...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription succeeds; respondents' claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those of two counsel.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with: 'The special plea of prescription is upheld with costs, including those of two counsel where so employed.'