Ndimande v MEC for Health for Mpumalanga Provincial Government (2905/2020) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 33 (23 April 2025)
The applicant failed to provide any explanation for the substantial delay of more than seven years in bringing the condonation application after being made aware of her non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements. The applicant did not address prospects of success in her founding or replying affidavits, and any reference to supporting evidence was unsubstantiated and not properly annexed to the court papers. The applicant's generic assertions regarding lack of prejudice to the respondent and reliance on constitutional rights were insufficient to justify condonation. The respondent demonstrated potential prejudice due to the passage of time and possible unavailability of medical...
- Citation
- [2025] ZAMPMBHC 33
- Parties
- Applicant: Andile Faith Ndimande; Respondent: MEC for Health for the Mpumalanga Provincial Government
- Court
- Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 23 April 2025
- Case Number
- 2905/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statutory Notice Under Section 3(4)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
- Outcome
- Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- H F Fourie
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Statutory Notice, Good Cause, Prejudice, Delay in Application
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andile Faith Ndimande
Applicant
MEC for Health for the Mpumalanga Provincial Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statutory Notice Under Section 3(4)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for non-compliance with Section 3(2)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent was unreasonably prejudiced by the applicant's failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements.
- 3 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay in bringing the condonation application.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to provide any explanation for the substantial delay of more than seven years in bringing the condonation application after being made aware of her non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements. The applicant did not address prospects of success in her founding or replying affidavits, and any reference to supporting evidence was unsubstantiated and not properly annexed to the court papers. The applicant's generic assertions regarding lack of prejudice to the respondent and reliance on constitutional rights were insufficient to justify condonation. The respondent demonstrated potential prejudice due to the passage of time and possible unavailability of medical...
Court Disposition
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for condonation for the late filing of the applicant's Letter of Demand in terms of Section 3(4)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act, 40 of 2002, is dismissed.
- The applicant is to pay the costs on the ordinary scale of party and party.
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