White v Kheis Munisipaliteit (1828/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 38 (9 December 2016)

White v Kheis Munisipaliteit (1828/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 38 (9 December 2016)

The court found that the applicant's non-compliance with the statutory notice period was due to a combination of severe injuries, lack of awareness, and the incapacitation of the initial attorney. However, the respondent was justified in refusing to accept the late notice based on the inadequate information provided prior to the application. The respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, as further details only emerged in the founding affidavit of the application. The applicant's refusal to accept the respondent's offer that each party bear its own costs led to unnecessary opposition and further costs. Therefore, condonation was granted for the late notice, but the applicant was ordered...

Citation
[2016] ZANCHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Brandon Andrew White; Respondent: Kheis Munisipaliteit
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2016
Case Number
1828/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation of Late Statutory Notice and Costs Order
Outcome
Condonation for non-compliance with statutory notice requirements granted; applicant ordered to pay costs of the application.
Judges
Olivier R
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Notice, Institution of Proceedings Against Organs of State, Statutory Notice Requirements, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Delict Condonation of Late Notice Institution of Proceedings Against Organs of State Statutory Notice Requirements Costs Order

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brandon Andrew White

Applicant

Kheis Munisipaliteit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation of Late Statutory Notice and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's non-compliance with the statutory notice period under section 3(1)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted unreasonably in refusing to accept the late notice prior to the application for condonation.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the condonation application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's non-compliance with the statutory notice period was due to a combination of severe injuries, lack of awareness, and the incapacitation of the initial attorney. However, the respondent was justified in refusing to accept the late notice based on the inadequate information provided prior to the application. The respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, as further details only emerged in the founding affidavit of the application. The applicant's refusal to accept the respondent's offer that each party bear its own costs led to unnecessary opposition and further costs. Therefore, condonation was granted for the late notice, but the applicant was ordered...

Court Disposition

Condonation for non-compliance with statutory notice requirements granted; applicant ordered to pay costs of the application.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with the provisions of section 3(1)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 is condoned.
  • Leave is granted to the applicant to proceed with his claim against the respondent under case number 429/2013.