Pienaar v Minister of Police (1396/2014) [2019] ZANCHC 18 (29 March 2019)

Pienaar v Minister of Police (1396/2014) [2019] ZANCHC 18 (29 March 2019)

The court held that the applicant's claim for damages arising from his arrest and detention became due at the time of his arrest in August 2004, not upon his acquittal in February 2014. The applicant failed to serve the required notice within six months of the debt becoming due, and the explanation for the delay was inadequate. The court found that the claim had prescribed and that condonation could not be granted as the statutory requirements were not met. Furthermore, the applicant did not address prospects of success or the absence of prejudice to the respondent. The paragraphs in the replying affidavit introduced new evidence not contained in the founding affidavit and, as the...

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Sipho Pienaar; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
1396/2014
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Judgment on Condonation and Striking Out
Outcome
Condonation for late filing of notice is refused; paragraphs 5.2 to 5.13 of the replying affidavit are struck out; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Prescription, Condonation, Unlawful Arrest and Detention, Striking Out Affidavit Paragraphs
Civil Procedure Delict Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Prescription Condonation Unlawful Arrest and Detention Striking Out Affidavit Paragraphs

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

Parties

Andrew Sipho Pienaar

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Judgment on Condonation and Striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the notice of intended legal proceedings against an organ of state.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether paragraphs 5.2 to 5.13 of the applicant's replying affidavit should be struck out for introducing new evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's claim for damages arising from his arrest and detention became due at the time of his arrest in August 2004, not upon his acquittal in February 2014. The applicant failed to serve the required notice within six months of the debt becoming due, and the explanation for the delay was inadequate. The court found that the claim had prescribed and that condonation could not be granted as the statutory requirements were not met. Furthermore, the applicant did not address prospects of success or the absence of prejudice to the respondent. The paragraphs in the replying affidavit introduced new evidence not contained in the founding affidavit and, as the...

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing of notice is refused; paragraphs 5.2 to 5.13 of the replying affidavit are struck out; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the applicant’s failure to serve the Notice contemplated in s 3(1)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, 40 of 2002, within the period laid down in s 3(2)(a) of the Act is dismissed with costs.
  • The respondent’s application to strike out paragraphs 5.2 to 5.13 of the applicant’s replying affidavit is granted with costs.