Mphati and Another v Minister of Police (600/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 39 (7 March 2022)

Mphati and Another v Minister of Police (600/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 39 (7 March 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the section 3 notice. Their founding affidavit was scant on the circumstances of their arrest and did not address prospects of success. The applicants only addressed prospects of success in their replying affidavit, which is impermissible. The court held that good cause was not shown, as required by section 3(4) of the Act. The respondent did not demonstrate unreasonable prejudice, but the absence of good cause was fatal to the application. Consequently, condonation was refused.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Sizwe Calvin Pumlani Mphati; Applicant: Karabo Jacob Tau; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2022
Case Number
600/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under S3 Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
N. M. Mbhele
Legal Topics
Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Late Notice, Good Cause, Prejudice to State
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Condonation Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Late Notice Good Cause Prejudice to State

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

Sizwe Calvin Pumlani Mphati

Applicant

Karabo Jacob Tau

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under S3 Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of their late notice under section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was unreasonably prejudiced by the late notice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants provided sufficient explanation for the delay and prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the section 3 notice. Their founding affidavit was scant on the circumstances of their arrest and did not address prospects of success. The applicants only addressed prospects of success in their replying affidavit, which is impermissible. The court held that good cause was not shown, as required by section 3(4) of the Act. The respondent did not demonstrate unreasonable prejudice, but the absence of good cause was fatal to the application. Consequently, condonation was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include those occasioned by the employment of one counsel.