Mukwevho and Others v MEC for Education, Limpopo and Another (79885/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 616 (28 August 2015)
The court found that the applicants failed to address the respondents' evidence that the charges were laid by students, not by the second respondent, and did not refute the Department's specialist's confirmation that the colleges were not registered at the relevant time. The documents provided by the applicants were certificates of accreditation for examination purposes, not certificates of registration under the relevant Act. Consequently, the applicants did not establish prospects of success on the merits of their intended claim for malicious prosecution. As the merits are weak and the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the application for condonation...
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 616
- Parties
- Applicant: Hangwani Joseph Mukwevho; Applicant: Olebile Monica Mukwevho; Applicant: Baal-Perazim College (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MEC for Education, Limpopo; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education and Training
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2015
- Case Number
- 79885/14
- Procedural Posture
- Condonation Application / Application for Condonation to Institute Proceedings Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- P.M. Mabuse
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Malicious Prosecution, Registration of Fet Colleges
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hangwani Joseph Mukwevho
Applicant
Olebile Monica Mukwevho
Applicant
Baal-Perazim College (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
MEC for Education, Limpopo
Respondent
Minister of Higher Education and Training
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation to Institute Proceedings Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether condonation should be granted to the applicants for late institution of legal proceedings against the respondents under section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
- 2 Whether the applicants have prospects of success on the merits of their intended claim for malicious prosecution against the respondents.
- 3 Whether the respondents would be unreasonably prejudiced by the late service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to address the respondents' evidence that the charges were laid by students, not by the second respondent, and did not refute the Department's specialist's confirmation that the colleges were not registered at the relevant time. The documents provided by the applicants were certificates of accreditation for examination purposes, not certificates of registration under the relevant Act. Consequently, the applicants did not establish prospects of success on the merits of their intended claim for malicious prosecution. As the merits are weak and the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the application for condonation...
Court Disposition
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for condonation is dismissed.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment