Mofolo v Minister of Police (3994/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 236 (21 September 2022)

Mofolo v Minister of Police (3994/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 236 (21 September 2022)

The court found that the applicant's delay in serving notice was inordinately long and inadequately explained. The applicant failed to provide a detailed or plausible account of her actions during the relevant period, and her assertion of ignorance of the law was rejected as untenable. The court held that ignorance of the law does not excuse non-compliance with statutory requirements. Furthermore, the applicant's prospects of success were weak, as she placed herself at the scene of the protest and associated with those committing criminal acts. The argument that the court order did not apply to her was without merit. The court concluded that the requirements for condonation were not met...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 236
Parties
Applicant: Pakiso Innocentia Mofolo; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2022
Case Number
3994/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Condonation and Related Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Late Filing, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Condonation Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Late Filing Prospects of Success Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pakiso Innocentia Mofolo

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Condonation and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of notice in terms of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in serving notice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has prospects of success in the main claim against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in serving notice was inordinately long and inadequately explained. The applicant failed to provide a detailed or plausible account of her actions during the relevant period, and her assertion of ignorance of the law was rejected as untenable. The court held that ignorance of the law does not excuse non-compliance with statutory requirements. Furthermore, the applicant's prospects of success were weak, as she placed herself at the scene of the protest and associated with those committing criminal acts. The argument that the court order did not apply to her was without merit. The court concluded that the requirements for condonation were not met...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant must pay the costs.