Pennington and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa and Others (47599/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 75 (3 February 2022)

Pennington and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa and Others (47599/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 75 (3 February 2022)

The court found that, having considered the submissions and the involved factual issues, the appeal is arguable and has reasonable prospects of success. The matter raises complex questions regarding prescription, the distinction between plaintiffs' claims, the legal basis for the second plaintiff's claim, misjoinder, and cumulative liability. The court held that these issues warrant the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal and granted leave to appeal accordingly. Costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 75
Parties
Plaintiff: Franklin D Pennington; Plaintiff: Gail Jackson Pennington; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa; Defendant: Minister of Police of the Republic of South Africa; Defendant: Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2022
Case Number
47599/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Special Plea
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Nyathi
Legal Topics
Prescription, Misjoinder, Cumulative Liability, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Misjoinder Cumulative Liability Leave to Appeal Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franklin D Pennington

Plaintiff

Gail Jackson Pennington

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa

Defendant

Minister of Police of the Republic of South Africa

Defendant

Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the special plea of prescription should have succeeded, resulting in a portion of the plaintiffs' action falling away.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in not distinguishing between the claims of the first and second plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff's claim is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, having considered the submissions and the involved factual issues, the appeal is arguable and has reasonable prospects of success. The matter raises complex questions regarding prescription, the distinction between plaintiffs' claims, the legal basis for the second plaintiff's claim, misjoinder, and cumulative liability. The court held that these issues warrant the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal and granted leave to appeal accordingly. Costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The applicants (defendants) are granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • The costs of this application, including the hearing on the application for leave to appeal, shall be costs in the appeal.