Minister of Safety and Security v Gardner (CA 250/2008) [2009] ZAECGHC 38 (2 July 2009)

Minister of Safety and Security v Gardner (CA 250/2008) [2009] ZAECGHC 38 (2 July 2009)

The court held that prescription for the State's claim against the official commenced when the State knew or reasonably ought to have known the identity of the official and the facts giving rise to liability, which was on 6 March 2001. The treasury regulations under the Public Finance Management Act do not affect the date on which the debt becomes due, as they merely prescribe procedures for recovery and do not create substantive prerequisites for a cause of action. The argument that actual payment to the third party is required before the debt becomes due was rejected, as the operative date is when the damage is suffered, not when payment is made. The magistrate's decision to uphold the...

Citation
[2009] ZAECGHC 38
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Eustace Percivale Abraham Gardner
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2009
Case Number
CA 250/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court on Prescription Special Plea
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Jones, Sandi
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Actio Legis Aquilia, Vicarious Liability, Public Finance Management Act, Treasury Regulations
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Actio Legis Aquilia Vicarious Liability Public Finance Management Act Treasury Regulations

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Appellant

Eustace Percivale Abraham Gardner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court on Prescription Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does prescription commence to run for a claim by the State against an official for recovery of damages paid to a third party.
  2. 2 Are the treasury regulations under the Public Finance Management Act relevant to the date prescription begins to run.
  3. 3 Is actual payment by the State to the third party a prerequisite for the debt to become due against the official.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that prescription for the State's claim against the official commenced when the State knew or reasonably ought to have known the identity of the official and the facts giving rise to liability, which was on 6 March 2001. The treasury regulations under the Public Finance Management Act do not affect the date on which the debt becomes due, as they merely prescribe procedures for recovery and do not create substantive prerequisites for a cause of action. The argument that actual payment to the third party is required before the debt becomes due was rejected, as the operative date is when the damage is suffered, not when payment is made. The magistrate's decision to uphold the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.