Ngobeni v Minister of Police (2013/20896) [2019] ZAGPJHC 170 (25 April 2019)

Ngobeni v Minister of Police (2013/20896) [2019] ZAGPJHC 170 (25 April 2019)

The court found that the first letter sent by the applicant's attorney on 10 October 2011 constituted effective and timeous notice in terms of section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002. The claim pursued in the action was the same as that notified in the first letter, and the second letter merely provided additional information and an increased quantum. The respondent ultimately accepted that the first notice was effective. Accordingly, condonation for late service of notice was not required. Declaratory relief was granted to resolve the dispute between the parties, confirming compliance with section 3(2) of the Act.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 170
Parties
Applicant: Melato Gift Ngobeni; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2019
Case Number
2013/20896
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Opposed Motion for Condonation and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted confirming compliance with section 3(2) of the Act; no condonation required. Each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Condonation for Late Notice, Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention
Civil Procedure Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Condonation for Late Notice Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melato Gift Ngobeni

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Opposed Motion for Condonation and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's notice of intended legal proceedings complied with section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for late service of notice is required under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the second notice letter was material to the claim instituted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first letter sent by the applicant's attorney on 10 October 2011 constituted effective and timeous notice in terms of section 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002. The claim pursued in the action was the same as that notified in the first letter, and the second letter merely provided additional information and an increased quantum. The respondent ultimately accepted that the first notice was effective. Accordingly, condonation for late service of notice was not required. Declaratory relief was granted to resolve the dispute between the parties, confirming compliance with section 3(2) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted confirming compliance with section 3(2) of the Act; no condonation required. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the notice dated 7 October 2011 dispatched by the applicant on 10 October 2011 complies with section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 for purposes of the claim instituted against the defendant under case number 20896/13.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.