Prinsloo v MEC of the Department of Education, Mpumalanga Province (2694/2020) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 48; (2022) 43 ILJ 2118 (MM) (28 June 2022)

Prinsloo v MEC of the Department of Education, Mpumalanga Province (2694/2020) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 48; (2022) 43 ILJ 2118 (MM) (28 June 2022)

The court found that the applicant's failure to serve the statutory notice on the correct person and within the prescribed period was satisfactorily explained by his lack of awareness, focus on disciplinary proceedings, and financial constraints. The respondent was not unreasonably prejudiced, and the debt was not extinguished by prescription. The court held that the assault on the applicant, a teacher, occurred in the course of employment but not out of employment, as the risk of assault was not incidental to teaching duties. Therefore, the claim was not barred by section 35(1) of COIDA. The respondent's reliance on res judicata was rejected, as disciplinary hearings do not constitute...

Citation
[2022] ZAMPMBHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Richard Roetz Prinsloo; Respondent: Member of the Council, Department of Education, Mpumalanga Province
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2022
Case Number
2694/2020
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Statutory Notice Under Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation for late and defective statutory notice is granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs of Senior Counsel.
Judges
TV Ratshibvumo
Legal Topics
Condonation, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Prescription, Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Labour Law Condonation Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act Prescription Res Judicata

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Roetz Prinsloo

Applicant

Member of the Council, Department of Education, Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Statutory Notice Under Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for late delivery and defective statutory notice under section 3(1) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, No. 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim is barred by section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, No. 130 of 1993 (COIDA).
  3. 3 Whether the assault on the applicant arose out of his employment for the purposes of COIDA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's failure to serve the statutory notice on the correct person and within the prescribed period was satisfactorily explained by his lack of awareness, focus on disciplinary proceedings, and financial constraints. The respondent was not unreasonably prejudiced, and the debt was not extinguished by prescription. The court held that the assault on the applicant, a teacher, occurred in the course of employment but not out of employment, as the risk of assault was not incidental to teaching duties. Therefore, the claim was not barred by section 35(1) of COIDA. The respondent's reliance on res judicata was rejected, as disciplinary hearings do not constitute...

Court Disposition

Condonation for late and defective statutory notice is granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs of Senior Counsel.

Orders

  • Condonation in terms of section 3(4)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, No. 40 of 2002, occasioned by the applicant’s failure to serve a notice as prescribed, is hereby granted.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application including the costs of Senior Counsel.