Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
18 April 2014
   
 
 
 
Embed Code Close
content
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related social media
 
 
Related social media terms:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In Minister of Safety and Security v De Witt 2009 (1) SA 457 (SCA) , the Supreme Court of Appeal was asked to consider if a court could grant condonation for non-compliance with the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002, where the plaintiff gave no notice whatsoever of his intention to institute legal proceedings. The court said it could grant condonation, if the proceedings were instituted before the expiry of the prescription period, if good cause existed for the plaintiff's non-compliance, and if the organ of state had not been unduly prejudiced. The court held as follows:

* The Act facilitates access to courts, and regulates legal procedures against large government organisations.
* The Act avoids drawing a hard and fast rule that may cause undue hardship to a plaintiff. The Act makes provision for time limits, but allows a court to condone non-compliance.
* Section 3 of the Act, which appears to have peremptory wording, must be read as a whole and the purpose of condonation must be kept in mind, i.e. to allow an action despite the fact that the peremptory provisions of section 3(1) were not met.
* The provision allowing condonation gives a discretion to a court to determine if the organ of state can rely on non-compliance, whatever form the non-compliance may take. If this were not so, the requirement of written notice would operate as an absolute bar to instituting legal proceedings and would constitute a real impediment to the plaintiff's access to court.

By: Webber Wentzel

 

 

 

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
 
  Topics on this page
 
 
 
Company
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association