Mulckhuyse v Minister of Police (2722/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 25 (26 June 2018)

Mulckhuyse v Minister of Police (2722/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 25 (26 June 2018)

The court found that the applicant had been furnished with all the requested information prior to launching the application. There was no correspondence from the applicant's attorneys indicating that only partial information was received or demanding the outstanding documents before approaching the court. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the court accepted the respondent's version that all documents were dispatched on 6 June 2017. The application was therefore unnecessary and precipitous. The applicant was not entitled to the principal relief sought, and the respondent was successful in opposing the application. Consequently, the costs should follow the result, and the applicant was...

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 25
Parties
Applicant: Leendert Dirk Mulckhuyse; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2018
Case Number
2722/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination After Access to Information Dispute
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
G G Goosen
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Costs Award, Internal Appeal Procedure
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Access to Information Act Costs Award Internal Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leendert Dirk Mulckhuyse

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination After Access to Information Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to approach the court for relief under PAIA after the requested information was furnished.
  2. 2 Whether the internal appeal was lodged prematurely under PAIA.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application when the relief sought is no longer necessary.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had been furnished with all the requested information prior to launching the application. There was no correspondence from the applicant's attorneys indicating that only partial information was received or demanding the outstanding documents before approaching the court. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the court accepted the respondent's version that all documents were dispatched on 6 June 2017. The application was therefore unnecessary and precipitous. The applicant was not entitled to the principal relief sought, and the respondent was successful in opposing the application. Consequently, the costs should follow the result, and the applicant was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.