Minister of Police v Dike - Application for Leave to Appeal (404/2022) [2023] ZAECBHC 32 (9 October 2023)

Minister of Police v Dike - Application for Leave to Appeal (404/2022) [2023] ZAECBHC 32 (9 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant introduced new facts regarding prescription for the first time in the application for leave to appeal, which were not present in the answering affidavit or special plea. As the court was functus officio, these facts could not be considered. The applicant failed to allege or prove...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAECBHC 32
Parties
Applicant: Minister of Police; Respondent: Nomboniso Lilian Dike
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2023
Case Number
404/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Judges
T.V Norman
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Statutory Notice, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Condonation Leave to Appeal Statutory Notice Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Police

Applicant

Nomboniso Lilian Dike

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim against the applicant had prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court misdirected itself in granting condonation for late delivery of the statutory notice.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant introduced new facts regarding prescription for the first time in the application for leave to appeal, which were not present in the answering affidavit or special plea. As the court was functus officio, these facts could not be considered. The applicant failed to allege or prove the respondent's knowledge of her right to claim at the relevant time, as required by the Prescription Act and established case law. The respondent's lack of knowledge and the delays caused by the applicant in providing information were accepted as reasonable and not negligent. The court held that the applicant did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal, as there were no...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused with costs.