Slaughter and Others v Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (36596/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 198 (31 May 2019)

Slaughter and Others v Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (36596/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 198 (31 May 2019)

The court found that the applicants introduced the claim for review only in May 2019, well after the 180-day period prescribed by section 7 of PAJA, and without providing an explanation for the delay. The respondent's point in limine regarding the time-bar was upheld. However, the court acknowledged that the respondent contributed to delays by failing to cooperate and provide reasons as required by PAJA. The court directed that the applicants may file an amended notice of motion and supplementary founding affidavit in terms of Rule 53, and apply for a variation of the time period under section 9 of PAJA if so advised. The respondent is afforded time to answer any new papers, and the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 198
Parties
Applicant: Robert Slaughter; Applicant: Shahit Wadvalla; Applicant: Reginald Legoabe; Applicant: Steven Njiri; Respondent: Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Case Number
36596/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion; Interlocutory Order on Amendment and Time Bar
Outcome
Respondent's point in limine upheld; applicants granted leave to amend and apply for variation of time; application postponed sine die.
Judges
HF Jacobs
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Amendment of Notice of Motion, Review of Administrative Action, Delay and Time Bar, Rule 53 Procedure
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Amendment of Notice of Motion Review of Administrative Action Delay and Time Bar Rule 53 Procedure

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

Robert Slaughter

Applicant

Shahit Wadvalla

Applicant

Reginald Legoabe

Applicant

Steven Njiri

Applicant

Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion; Interlocutory Order on Amendment and Time Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' amended notice of motion introducing a review claim was brought outside the 180-day period prescribed by section 7 of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is prejudiced by the late amendment and lack of opportunity to answer the supplemented notice of motion.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants should be permitted to proceed with the review application despite procedural irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants introduced the claim for review only in May 2019, well after the 180-day period prescribed by section 7 of PAJA, and without providing an explanation for the delay. The respondent's point in limine regarding the time-bar was upheld. However, the court acknowledged that the respondent contributed to delays by failing to cooperate and provide reasons as required by PAJA. The court directed that the applicants may file an amended notice of motion and supplementary founding affidavit in terms of Rule 53, and apply for a variation of the time period under section 9 of PAJA if so advised. The respondent is afforded time to answer any new papers, and the...

Court Disposition

Respondent's point in limine upheld; applicants granted leave to amend and apply for variation of time; application postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The respondent's point in limine is upheld.
  • The costs of the proceedings during the week of 27 May 2019 are to be costs in the application.