Strydom and Another v MEC: Police, Roads and Transport Free State Province (5042/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 237 (6 November 2014)

Strydom and Another v MEC: Police, Roads and Transport Free State Province (5042/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 237 (6 November 2014)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a sufficiently full and satisfactory explanation for the delay of almost three years in serving the statutory notice. The applicants' affidavits were vague and did not account for the period between the accident and their first contact with an attorney. The attorney's explanation for the delay was inadequate and lacked detail. The applicants did not address prospects of success on the merits. The respondent was unreasonably prejudiced by the late notice, as the road had been completely resurfaced before notification, depriving the respondent of the opportunity to investigate and gather objective evidence. The court held that all three...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 237
Parties
Applicant: Jaco Strydom; Applicant: Ferdinand Frederick Behm; Respondent: MEC: Police, Roads and Transport Free State Province
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2014
Case Number
5042/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation Under Section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Murray, AJ
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Condonation, Prescription, Good Cause, Unreasonable Prejudice
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Condonation Prescription Good Cause Unreasonable Prejudice

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaco Strydom

Applicant

Ferdinand Frederick Behm

Applicant

MEC: Police, Roads and Transport Free State Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation Under Section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for their failure to serve notice within the statutory six-month period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have satisfied the court that the respondent was not unreasonably prejudiced by the late notice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' claim has prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a sufficiently full and satisfactory explanation for the delay of almost three years in serving the statutory notice. The applicants' affidavits were vague and did not account for the period between the accident and their first contact with an attorney. The attorney's explanation for the delay was inadequate and lacked detail. The applicants did not address prospects of success on the merits. The respondent was unreasonably prejudiced by the late notice, as the road had been completely resurfaced before notification, depriving the respondent of the opportunity to investigate and gather objective evidence. The court held that all three...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation in terms of section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 is dismissed with costs.