Pegma Thirteen Investments (Pty) Ltd v Free State Development Corporation (2399/06) [2006] ZAFSHC 75 (12 June 2006)

Pegma Thirteen Investments (Pty) Ltd v Free State Development Corporation (2399/06) [2006] ZAFSHC 75 (12 June 2006)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a valid reason for not giving notice to the respondent within the prescribed period. The applicant's claim that it could not quantify its damages earlier was unsupported by facts and contradicted by its own knowledge of the events and values involved. The urgency of the application was entirely self-created due to the applicant's neglect in considering action against the respondent until the claim was about to prescribe. The court held that self-created urgency does not justify condonation or deviation from normal procedure. Furthermore, the application was likely premature, as the respondent still had time to respond to the notice...

Citation
[2006] ZAFSHC 75
Parties
Applicant: Pegma Thirteen Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Free State Development Corporation
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2006
Case Number
2399/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation Under Section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002
Outcome
Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
C. Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Condonation, Notice to State Organs, Self Created Urgency, Institution of Action, Prescription
Civil Procedure Condonation Notice to State Organs Self Created Urgency Institution of Action Prescription

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pegma Thirteen Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Free State Development Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation Under Section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient grounds for condonation of late notice under section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the urgency of the application is self-created and justifies deviation from normal court rules.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's inability to quantify its claim earlier constitutes a valid excuse for late notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a valid reason for not giving notice to the respondent within the prescribed period. The applicant's claim that it could not quantify its damages earlier was unsupported by facts and contradicted by its own knowledge of the events and values involved. The urgency of the application was entirely self-created due to the applicant's neglect in considering action against the respondent until the claim was about to prescribe. The court held that self-created urgency does not justify condonation or deviation from normal procedure. Furthermore, the application was likely premature, as the respondent still had time to respond to the notice...

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is removed from the roll.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.