Ramontja v Legal Aid South Africa (2021/44369) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1222 (26 November 2024)

Ramontja v Legal Aid South Africa (2021/44369) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1222 (26 November 2024)

The court found that the applicant was not informed of his rights to appeal immediately after sentencing, which constituted professional negligence by the respondent's employee. The applicant only became aware of his rights after his release from prison, and the delay in serving the notice was due to circumstances beyond his control, including COVID-19 restrictions. The court held that the debt became due after the applicant's release and that he acted promptly thereafter. The respondent was not unreasonably prejudiced by the delay, as relevant records and witnesses remain available. Accordingly, condonation for the late delivery of the notice was granted, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1222
Parties
Applicant: Sello Lazarus Ramontja; Respondent: Legal Aid South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Case Number
2021/44369
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Opposed Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under Section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation for late delivery of the notice is granted. No order as to costs.
Judges
M.M Mabesele
Legal Topics
Condonation, Prescription Act Section 12 3, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Delict Condonation Prescription Act Section 12 3 Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act Professional Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sello Lazarus Ramontja

Applicant

Legal Aid South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Opposed Application for Condonation of Late Notice Under Section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late delivery of the notice contemplated in Section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
  2. 2 Whether the cause of action arose on 18 May 2020 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the delay and prospects of success in the main action for professional negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not informed of his rights to appeal immediately after sentencing, which constituted professional negligence by the respondent's employee. The applicant only became aware of his rights after his release from prison, and the delay in serving the notice was due to circumstances beyond his control, including COVID-19 restrictions. The court held that the debt became due after the applicant's release and that he acted promptly thereafter. The respondent was not unreasonably prejudiced by the delay, as relevant records and witnesses remain available. Accordingly, condonation for the late delivery of the notice was granted, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Condonation for late delivery of the notice is granted. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for late delivery of the Notice contemplated in Section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act, 40 of 2002, is granted.
  • No order as to costs.