Sherenisa and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (2394/09) [2012] ZAFSHC 30 (1 March 2012)

Sherenisa and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (2394/09) [2012] ZAFSHC 30 (1 March 2012)

The court held that the defendants are bound by the admissions made in their plea regarding the second defendant's responsibility and vicarious liability for the prosecution of the plaintiffs. Withdrawal of such admissions is not permissible without a substantive application and supporting affidavit explaining the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 30
Parties
Plaintiff: Fatima Sherenisa; Plaintiff: Neliswe Sengoane; Plaintiff: Isak Tenki Mariti; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security; Defendant: Minister of Justice
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2012
Case Number
2394/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Ruling on Admissions and Non Joinder Before Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Defendants bound by admissions; no finding of non-joinder or misjoinder; costs awarded to plaintiffs; leave granted for new trial date.
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Joinder and Non Joinder, Admissions in Pleadings, Vicarious Liability, Malicious Prosecution
Civil Procedure Joinder and Non Joinder Admissions in Pleadings Vicarious Liability Malicious Prosecution

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatima Sherenisa

Plaintiff

Neliswe Sengoane

Plaintiff

Isak Tenki Mariti

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Minister of Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Ruling on Admissions and Non Joinder Before Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant is bound by admissions made in the plea regarding vicarious liability for prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether there has been a misjoinder of the second defendant and non-joinder of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants may withdraw admissions made in their plea without a substantive application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants are bound by the admissions made in their plea regarding the second defendant's responsibility and vicarious liability for the prosecution of the plaintiffs. Withdrawal of such admissions is not permissible without a substantive application and supporting affidavit explaining the circumstances. The defence of non-joinder or misjoinder is dilatory and must be raised before issue is joined, not at trial. As the proper procedures for amendment and joinder were not followed, and no substantive application was made, no finding of misjoinder or non-joinder can be made at this stage. The defendants are ordered to pay the costs of the hearing, and the plaintiffs...

Court Disposition

Defendants bound by admissions; no finding of non-joinder or misjoinder; costs awarded to plaintiffs; leave granted for new trial date.

Orders

  • The defendants are bound by the admissions made in their plea regarding paragraphs 5 and 10 of the particulars of claim.
  • No finding of non-joinder or misjoinder is made.