Malgas and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (Special plea) (73418/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 182 (15 February 2024)

Malgas and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (Special plea) (73418/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 182 (15 February 2024)

The court held that the plaintiffs' delictual claims for wrongful detention and deprivation of liberty only became complete and justiciable when the Constitutional Court set aside their convictions and sentences in 2015. Prior to this, the plaintiffs could not have been expected to prejudge the outcome of their appeal, and their claims were not immediately enforceable. Therefore, the institution of action in 2016 was within the prescriptive period, and the special plea of prescription raised by the defendant must be dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 182
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Thembekile Malgas; Plaintiff: Alfred Disco Biyela; Plaintiff: Boswell John Mhlongo; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2024
Case Number
73418/2016
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Trial on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Defendant's special plea of prescription dismissed with costs of two counsel.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Wrongful Detention, Deprivation of Liberty, Special Plea, Quantum Postponement
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Wrongful Detention Deprivation of Liberty Special Plea Quantum Postponement

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Thembekile Malgas

Plaintiff

Alfred Disco Biyela

Plaintiff

Boswell John Mhlongo

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Trial on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' delictual claims against the defendant have prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When the cause of action for wrongful detention and deprivation of liberty became complete and justiciable.
  3. 3 Whether the institution of action in 2016 was within the prescriptive period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs' delictual claims for wrongful detention and deprivation of liberty only became complete and justiciable when the Constitutional Court set aside their convictions and sentences in 2015. Prior to this, the plaintiffs could not have been expected to prejudge the outcome of their appeal, and their claims were not immediately enforceable. Therefore, the institution of action in 2016 was within the prescriptive period, and the special plea of prescription raised by the defendant must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea of prescription dismissed with costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs of two counsel.