South Africa Case Law

Kosi v Minister of Police (Appeal) (CA 17/2024)

Kosi v Minister of Police (Appeal) (CA 17/2024) [2025] ZAECBHC 6 (4 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA 17/2024

Judges

A.S Zono, JGA Laing

The court found that the appellant, as a lay and unsophisticated person, provided a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay in serving the statutory notice required under section 3(1)(a) of Act 40 of 2002. The appellant only became aware of the legal requirement after consulting an attorney, and the delay was limited to four months, with no prejudice to the respondent. The court held that the explanation for delay must be assessed in light of the appellant's lack of legal knowledge and sophistication. Furthermore, the appellant demonstrated good prospects of success in the main ac…

Source excerpt

• Condonation Of Late Notice
• Unlawful Arrest
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Prospects Of Success
• Good Cause
• Burden Of Justification

Minister of Police and Others v Nepgen (91457/19)

Minister of Police and Others v Nepgen (91457/19) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1279 (5 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91457/19

Judge

E M Kubushi

The High Court granted condonation and rescinded a default judgment against the police and prosecution authorities, finding a reasonable explanation and bona fide defences.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Prescription
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State

Minister of Police v Ngoyo (Leave to Appeal) (5341/2018)

Minister of Police v Ngoyo (Leave to Appeal) (5341/2018) [2024] ZAECMHC 83 (5 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

5341/2018

Judge

RWN Brooks

The High Court dismissed condonation and leave to appeal, finding a 14-month unexplained delay, peremption through acquiescence, and negligible prospects of success.

• Condonation For Late Filing
• Peremption Of Appeal Right
• Prescription Of Claim
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Condonation
• Leave-to-appeal

Ramahapi v Minister of Police and Others (1294/2019)

Ramahapi v Minister of Police and Others (1294/2019) [2024] ZAFSHC 308 (3 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1294/2019

Judge

Opperman

The court found that the plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution against both the first and second defendants had prescribed. Although condonation was granted for non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements and premature service of summons, section 5(3) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act is mandatory and operates independently of condonation. The claim was only deemed served after the expiry of the statutory 60-day period, which resulted in prescription before valid service occurred. The plaintiff's conduct in the litigation, including mul…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Malicious Prosecution
• Condonation
• Costs Award

Motaung v Minister of Department of Police and Another (1308/2021)

Motaung v Minister of Department of Police and Another (1308/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 288 (12 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1308/2021

Judge

T L MANYE

The court found that the applicant's claim had not prescribed and that the delay in serving the statutory notice was not due to a flagrant disregard of the statutory requirements, but rather arose from the applicant's reliance on legal advice and the process of changing attorneys. The applicant provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, and the respondents failed to demonstrate any unreasonable prejudice resulting from the late delivery of the notice. The requirements for condonation under section 3(4)(b) of Act 40 of 2002 were satisfied, and the court exercised its discretion in favou…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Section 3 Notice
• Prescription
• Unreasonable Prejudice

Ntsane v Minister of Police and Another (1839/2022)

Ntsane v Minister of Police and Another (1839/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 242 (12 August 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1839/2022

Judge

Mahlangu AJ

The court found that the applicant's failure to comply with section 3 of Act 40 of 2002 was due to his legal representative's mistaken belief regarding the date the cause of action arose. The applicant was detained for 21 months and only consulted his attorney after release. The notice was served after consultation, and the delay was not attributable to the applicant's own conduct. The court was satisfied that the claim had not prescribed, good cause existed for the failure, and the respondents would not suffer unreasonable prejudice. The error was not the applicant's fault, and punishing him…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Prescription
• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Malicious Prosecution

Lisenga v Minister of Justice (1609/2019)

Lisenga v Minister of Justice (1609/2019) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 43 (25 June 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1609/2019

Judge

Mashile

The court found that Lisenga acquired knowledge of the conviction and criminal record in 2012 and 2013 during employment interviews, which constituted the minimum facts necessary to institute a delictual claim against the Minister. Section 12 of the Prescription Act does not require knowledge of legal consequences, only of the facts giving rise to the claim. The exceptions in Section 12(2) and (3) were not applicable, as there was no evidence that the Minister prevented Lisenga from acquiring knowledge, and Lisenga knew the identity of the debtor. The court held that prescription commenced in…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Delictual Damages
• Wrongful Conviction
• Special Plea Of Prescription

Moletsane v Minister of Police and Another (4256/2023)

Moletsane v Minister of Police and Another (4256/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 190 (14 June 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4256/2023

Judge

Majosi

The court found that the applicant provided a sufficient explanation for the late notice to the second respondent, attributing the delay to lack of legal knowledge and advice. The period of lateness was only six months, and the applicant acted promptly upon receiving proper legal advice. The court was satisfied that the debt had not been extinguished by prescription, good cause existed for the delay, and the respondents would not suffer unreasonable prejudice. The respondents did not demonstrate any loss of evidence or unavailability of witnesses. The applicant's acquittal in the criminal tri…

Source excerpt

• Condonation For Late Notice
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unlawful Arrest And Detention

Khoza and Another v Minister of Police and Another (3507/18)

Khoza and Another v Minister of Police and Another (3507/18) [2024] ZAGPPHC 628 (12 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3507/18

Judge

Mabuse

The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution arose on 23 November 2012, the uncontested date of arrest. In terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, such claims prescribe after three years. The summons was only served on the first defendant on 30 January 2018, well beyond the prescription period. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the prior condonation order under section 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act rendered the prescription issue res judicata, relying on binding pr…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Unlawful Arrest
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unfair Dismissal
• Res Judicata
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State

Cohvest 67 CC t/a Gubevu Management Services and Another v Mpumalanga Department of Public Works and Transport (2257/2018)

Cohvest 67 CC t/a Gubevu Management Services and Another v Mpumalanga Department of Public Works and Transport (2257/2018) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 39 (7 June 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2257/2018

Judge

Mashile

The Court found that Cohvest was aware of all material facts necessary to institute its claim as early as 20 October 2013, when the Department refused to proceed with the second intake of learner contractors. Prescription began to run from that date, and the claim prescribed in October 2016, well before the summons was served in August 2018. The contractual time-bar in Clause 14 further limited actions to one year from accrual, which Cohvest failed to observe. Additionally, Cohvest did not serve the statutory notice within six months as required by section 3 of the Institution of Legal Procee…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Contractual Time Bar
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Breach Of Contract