Ntintili v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (788/2015) [2024] ZAGPJHC 676 (15 July 2024)

Ntintili v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (788/2015) [2024] ZAGPJHC 676 (15 July 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to show good cause for condonation of her late delivery of notice under section 3 of Act 40 of 2002. The applicant's attorneys were negligent in serving the notice on the wrong organ of state and in delaying the application for condonation after becoming aware of the error. The explanation for the delay was inadequate, and no reasonable prospects of success were pleaded. The respondent was prejudiced by the late notice, as it was unable to investigate the alleged open drainage opening promptly. The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable organs of state to investigate and defend claims timeously, which was frustrated by the applicant's...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 676
Parties
Applicant: Nokutla Lucy Ntintili; Respondent: City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Case Number
788/2015
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Judgment After Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under S3 of Act 40 of 2002
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Malindi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Late Notice, Special Plea, Prejudice to Organ of State
Civil Procedure Land and Property Condonation Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Late Notice Special Plea Prejudice to Organ of State

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nokutla Lucy Ntintili

Applicant

City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Judgment After Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under S3 of Act 40 of 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for condonation of late delivery of notice under section 3 of Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in serving notice prejudiced the respondent's ability to investigate and defend the claim.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's attorney's negligence excuses the delay in applying for condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to show good cause for condonation of her late delivery of notice under section 3 of Act 40 of 2002. The applicant's attorneys were negligent in serving the notice on the wrong organ of state and in delaying the application for condonation after becoming aware of the error. The explanation for the delay was inadequate, and no reasonable prospects of success were pleaded. The respondent was prejudiced by the late notice, as it was unable to investigate the alleged open drainage opening promptly. The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable organs of state to investigate and defend claims timeously, which was frustrated by the applicant's...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation in terms of Section 3 of Act 40 of 2002 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the cost of the application.