It is common for individuals to be harmed as a result of the negligence of a government entity and/or its employees. This may be the case, for example, if a person is unlawfully injured or arrested by members of the South African Police Service. In such cases, a person would have the right to claim damages from that State organ. “Creditor” – is a person who intends to initiate legal proceedings against a State body for the recovery of a debt or who has initiated such proceedings, including the guardian or curator of that person, if that person is a minor, mentally ill or under curatorship. “Debt” – means any debt arising out of: tort, contract or other liability and cause of action arising out of an act or omission under a law for which an organ of the State is required to pay damages, whether the debt became due before or after the specified date. fixed date” – means the date of entry into force of this Act. The term “State organ” – all the requirements for notification to a State organ – is also available in printed form for the initiation of legal proceedings against certain State organs under Law 40 of 2002; State Responsibility Act No. 20 of 1957; Juta`s Pocket Statutes Act 52 of 1997 AND as part of the Local Government Comprehensive Library (14-volume box set with two boxes). The definition of an “organ of the State” is summarized in article 1 of the Act and reads as follows: Another requirement that gives rise to the greatest number of offences is contained in article 3 (2) (a) concerns the time limit within which notification must be served on the organ of the State concerned.

Article 3 (2) (a) provides that service shall be served on the competent organ of the State within six (6) months from the date of origin of the plea. (iii) the organ of the State was not unreasonably disadvantaged by the omission. The purpose of the legal proceedings against certain State bodies under Act No. 40 of 2002 is to regulate the limitation period for debts for which certain State bodies are responsible and to harmonize limitation periods. It also aims to set out the notification obligations relating to the initiation of legal proceedings against certain State bodies in connection with the recovery of debts by the State. When deciding whether or not to institute proceedings against a State body, it is important to note the provisions of the Act on the Initiation of Legal Proceedings against Certain State Organs, Act No. 40 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 3 § 1 of the Act provides: the first edition of Act No.

40 of 2002 on the initiation of legal proceedings against certain organs of the State; Law 20 of 1957 on State Responsibility, which is part of the Juta Legislation e-book series, mirrors the Law of 23 March 2018. The consequence of the preceding article is that a party does not have the right to claim damages from a state agency within the meaning of the law without first notifying its intention. The purpose of the law is to ensure that State bodies, which are known to be large and complex institutions with high workloads, administration and staff turnover, have sufficient time to investigate complaints against them. Legal proceedings may be instituted against a State organ if: Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Act stipulates that a communication shall state, as far as possible, the background and facts relating to the cause of action and the sums claimed. In these circumstances, the court grants a tolerated stay to an applicant in order to assert his claim against the State organ. However, it is important that you contact your lawyer as soon as possible if you suspect that your complaint may be directed against a state body in order to avoid having to go to court to ask for tolerance. However, this is not the end of the road for a potential litigant`s claim, as subsection 3(4) of the Act allows a party to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction tolerating late notice. Article 3(4) provides: It is also possible to apply to a court for a stay of deportation if no notification has been given. In Minister of Safety and Security v. De Witt 2009 (1) SA 457 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal held that if a plaintiff has not made any notification, the stay of expulsion may be granted if proceedings have been initiated before the expiry of the limitation period, if there is a substantial reason for non-compliance and if the State organ has not been unduly disadvantaged.

Legal proceedings against certain bodies of National Law 40 of 2002 do not apply: – Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional legal advice. The owner will not be liable for claims or losses, of any nature and nature, arising directly or indirectly from the information provided. All rights reserved. (d) the South African Maritime Safety Authority as defined in section 2 of the South African Maritime Safety Authority Act 1998 (Act No. 5 of 1998) (b) a municipality within the meaning of section 15 § 1 of the Constitution; (ii) there is a valid reason for default by the creditor; and. (e) The South African National Roads Agency Limited, under section 3 of the South African National Roads Agency Limited and the National Roads Act 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998); and subparagraph 3(4)(b)(ii) requires the party bringing an action before the Tribunal to explain why it was not possible to comply with the law and that the party be expected to explain to the best of his or her ability every day. If the notice was sent by email or facsimile as described above, the creditor must: WHAT HAPPENS IF A PARTY HAS NOT PROVIDED THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION? Section 2: A debt is extinguished by reason of the limitation period if: – (b) The court may grant an application under clause (a) if it is satisfied that: (ii) upon receipt of a notice that does not meet all the requirements set out in subsection (2). (i) the debt has not been extinguished by statute of limitation;.