Mukwevho and Others v MEC for Education, Limpopo and Another (79885/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 616 (28 August 2015)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 2 Whether the applicants have prospects of success on the merits of their intended claim for malicious prosecution against the respondents.
  3. 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.