Minister of Law and Order v Singh (429/91) [1992] ZASCA 221 (27 November 1992)

Minister of Law and Order v Singh (429/91) [1992] ZASCA 221 (27 November 1992)

The court held that the immunity granted under the Indemnity Act was intended to apply to the individual identified in the schedule, regardless of whether the name used was real or assumed. The Act refers to 'any person' and does not require the exact legal name as a precondition for valid immunity. In this case, the alias 'Kumar Sanjay' was sufficient to identify Girja Singh as the intended beneficiary of the immunity. The misinformation provided to the authorities did not invalidate the immunity, and Singh was protected from arrest and detention during the period specified. The appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was inadequate, and there were no reasonable...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 221
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Law and Order; Respondent: Deomani Singh
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1992
Case Number
429/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation refused with costs, including costs of appeal and costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
Judges
Botha JA, Nestadt JA, Eksteen JA, Nienaber JA, Kriegler AJA
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Appeal, Identity in Legal Proceedings, Statutory Immunity
Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Appeal Identity in Legal Proceedings Statutory Immunity

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Law and Order

Appellant

Deomani Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's application for condonation for late filing of the appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the immunity granted under the Indemnity Act to 'Kumar Sanjay' applied to Girja Singh, who used that alias.
  3. 3 Whether the use of a pseudonym invalidated the immunity granted under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the immunity granted under the Indemnity Act was intended to apply to the individual identified in the schedule, regardless of whether the name used was real or assumed. The Act refers to 'any person' and does not require the exact legal name as a precondition for valid immunity. In this case, the alias 'Kumar Sanjay' was sufficient to identify Girja Singh as the intended beneficiary of the immunity. The misinformation provided to the authorities did not invalidate the immunity, and Singh was protected from arrest and detention during the period specified. The appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was inadequate, and there were no reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused with costs, including costs of appeal and costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused with costs.
  • Costs to include those of the appeal and those occasioned by the employment of two counsel.