Ngoveni and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (1603/2020) [2024] ZALMPTHC 5 (29 January 2024)

Ngoveni and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (1603/2020) [2024] ZALMPTHC 5 (29 January 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in launching the review application, as required by law. The explanation did not cover the entire period of delay, particularly the four years between the initial decision and the first application. The reasons for abandoning the first application and launching the present one were inadequately explained. Furthermore, the prospects of success on the merits were virtually non-existent, given the existence of a pending related application and confusion regarding the parties and subject matter. The delay of nearly five years was inordinately long and not justified under PAJA or common law....

Citation
[2024] ZALMPTHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Action Tinyiko Ngoveni; Applicant: Nkhamanyane Royal Family; Respondent: Premier of Limpopo Province; Respondent: MEC for Cooperative Governance Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Chairperson of Limpopo Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Dispute; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims; Respondent: Protect Sambo; Respondent: Limpopo Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2024
Case Number
1603/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation Application Preceding Merits Review
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed; merits not considered.
Judges
M S Monene
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Administrative Action, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Delay in Instituting Review, Jurisdictional Factors, Interests of Justice
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Administrative Action Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Delay in Instituting Review Jurisdictional Factors Interests of Justice

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Action Tinyiko Ngoveni

Applicant

Nkhamanyane Royal Family

Applicant

Premier of Limpopo Province

Respondent

MEC for Cooperative Governance Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Chairperson of Limpopo Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Dispute

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims

Respondent

Protect Sambo

Respondent

Limpopo Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation Application Preceding Merits Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in launching the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success on the merits justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in launching the review application, as required by law. The explanation did not cover the entire period of delay, particularly the four years between the initial decision and the first application. The reasons for abandoning the first application and launching the present one were inadequately explained. Furthermore, the prospects of success on the merits were virtually non-existent, given the existence of a pending related application and confusion regarding the parties and subject matter. The delay of nearly five years was inordinately long and not justified under PAJA or common law....

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed; merits not considered.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.