Mokhemisa v Minister of Police (1340/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 436 (9 November 2023)

Mokhemisa v Minister of Police (1340/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 436 (9 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant's founding affidavit substantially complied with the Administration of Oaths Regulations, as the identity of the Commissioner of Oaths could be ascertained from the information provided. The respondent's objection on this ground was rejected. Regarding prescription, the court held that the service of summons interrupts prescription and that the applicant's claim had not prescribed at the time of service. The respondent's reliance on section 5(2) and (3) of Act 40 of 2002 was misplaced, as these provisions pertain to the respondent's response period rather than prescription. On the issue of good cause, the court accepted the applicant's explanation for...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 436
Parties
Applicant: Thabang Berney Mokhemisa; Respondent: The Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 2023
Case Number
1340/2023
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Statutory Notice Period Prior to Institution of Action Against Organ of State.
Outcome
Application for condonation granted.
Judges
Mthimunye
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Condonation, Prescription, Good Cause, Prejudice, Administration of Oaths
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Condonation Prescription Good Cause Prejudice Administration of Oaths

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabang Berney Mokhemisa

Applicant

The Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Statutory Notice Period Prior to Institution of Action Against Organ of State.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's founding affidavit substantially complies with the Administration of Oaths Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim against the respondent has prescribed under the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in serving notice as required by section 3(2)(a) of Act 40 of 2002.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's founding affidavit substantially complied with the Administration of Oaths Regulations, as the identity of the Commissioner of Oaths could be ascertained from the information provided. The respondent's objection on this ground was rejected. Regarding prescription, the court held that the service of summons interrupts prescription and that the applicant's claim had not prescribed at the time of service. The respondent's reliance on section 5(2) and (3) of Act 40 of 2002 was misplaced, as these provisions pertain to the respondent's response period rather than prescription. On the issue of good cause, the court accepted the applicant's explanation for...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • Costs shall be costs in the cause.