Phasani v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (5411/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 923 (28 November 2022)

Phasani v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (5411/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 923 (28 November 2022)

The court found that the applicant's claim had prescribed because he possessed sufficient material facts to institute action from the date of the alleged incident on 9 August 2016. The applicant knew the identity of the debtor and the wrongfulness of the conduct at that time. His assertion that he only became aware of the cause of action after advice from Dr Sepato and the withdrawal of charges in 2018 was rejected, as it amounted to requiring certainty of legal conclusion rather than knowledge of material facts. The applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay of one year and nine months in serving the statutory notice, and his reliance on ignorance of...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 923
Parties
Applicant: Tshililo Willard Phasani; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2022
Case Number
5411/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statutory Notice
Outcome
Application for condonation for late filing of statutory notice dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mncube
Legal Topics
Condonation, Prescription Act, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Unlawful Arrest, Good Cause, Prejudice
Civil Procedure Delict Condonation Prescription Act Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Unlawful Arrest Good Cause Prejudice

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshililo Willard Phasani

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statutory Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for damages has prescribed in terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has met all jurisdictional requirements for condonation under section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
  3. 3 Whether good cause exists for the failure to give the required statutory notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim had prescribed because he possessed sufficient material facts to institute action from the date of the alleged incident on 9 August 2016. The applicant knew the identity of the debtor and the wrongfulness of the conduct at that time. His assertion that he only became aware of the cause of action after advice from Dr Sepato and the withdrawal of charges in 2018 was rejected, as it amounted to requiring certainty of legal conclusion rather than knowledge of material facts. The applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay of one year and nine months in serving the statutory notice, and his reliance on ignorance of...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for late filing of statutory notice dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of notice in terms of section 3 of Act 40 of 2002 is dismissed with costs.