Mkhombo and Others v Minister of Defence (31242/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 741 (2 November 2021)

Mkhombo and Others v Minister of Defence (31242/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 741 (2 November 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the delay in instituting the review proceedings, as required by law. The only reasons advanced were that the applicant was a layperson and had pursued internal remedies, but the evidence showed that only two emails were sent in July 2014 and no further steps were taken. The applicant did not request reasons for the impugned decision, nor did he explain why he waited until 2018 to seek legal advice. The interests of justice require finality in administrative decisions, and the applicant's prospects of success were not sufficient to outweigh the lack of explanation for the delay. Consequently, condonation...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 741
Parties
Applicant: Frederick Nkukukeko Mkhombo; Respondent: Minister of Defence
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2021
Case Number
31242/18
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Institution of Judicial Review
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed with costs.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Condonation, Judicial Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Unreasonable Delay
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Condonation Judicial Review Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Unreasonable Delay

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Nkukukeko Mkhombo

Applicant

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Institution of Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in instituting judicial review proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice require condonation for the late filing of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant pursued internal remedies and exhausted them before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the delay in instituting the review proceedings, as required by law. The only reasons advanced were that the applicant was a layperson and had pursued internal remedies, but the evidence showed that only two emails were sent in July 2014 and no further steps were taken. The applicant did not request reasons for the impugned decision, nor did he explain why he waited until 2018 to seek legal advice. The interests of justice require finality in administrative decisions, and the applicant's prospects of success were not sufficient to outweigh the lack of explanation for the delay. Consequently, condonation...

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs occasioned by the previous postponement are costs in the cause and will be carried by the applicant.