Mogopodi v Member of the Executive Council of the Free State (122/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 38 (13 March 2008)

Mogopodi v Member of the Executive Council of the Free State (122/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 38 (13 March 2008)

The court found that the purported notice dated 12 September 2005 did not comply with section 3 of Act 40 of 2002, as it referred to a debt relating to the Remogo Centre, for which no debt was owed, and failed to mention or provide particulars of the debt claimed for Remogo 2 and Remogo 3. The statutory requirement for notice is peremptory, and the notice must clearly identify the debt and facts giving rise to it. The applicant's notice was so defective that it could not be considered notice at all of the intended legal suit. As the giving of proper notice is a prerequisite for instituting proceedings, and the applicant failed to comply, the application for condonation and declaratory...

Citation
[2008] ZAFSHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Lebogang Godfrey Mogopodi; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council of the Free State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2008
Case Number
122/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Statutory Notice Requirements Prior to Institution of Action for Remuneration.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ebrahim
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Statutory Notice Requirements, Condonation, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Statutory Notice Requirements Condonation Declaratory Relief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebogang Godfrey Mogopodi

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council of the Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Statutory Notice Requirements Prior to Institution of Action for Remuneration.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant gave proper notice in terms of section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 before instituting proceedings for remuneration.
  2. 2 Whether the purported notice dated 12 September 2005 complied with statutory requirements and identified the correct debt.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for non-compliance should be granted if notice was defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the purported notice dated 12 September 2005 did not comply with section 3 of Act 40 of 2002, as it referred to a debt relating to the Remogo Centre, for which no debt was owed, and failed to mention or provide particulars of the debt claimed for Remogo 2 and Remogo 3. The statutory requirement for notice is peremptory, and the notice must clearly identify the debt and facts giving rise to it. The applicant's notice was so defective that it could not be considered notice at all of the intended legal suit. As the giving of proper notice is a prerequisite for instituting proceedings, and the applicant failed to comply, the application for condonation and declaratory...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.