Sizeka Iris Daniso and Others v Minister of Police

The applicants, three individuals, instituted an action for damages against the Minister of Police based on claims for unlawful arrest and detention (Claim A) arising from arrests in August and September 2017, and malicious prosecution (Claim B) following the termination of criminal proceedings on 9 September 2019. Summons was issued in August 2020. The respondent raised a special plea alleging non-compliance with section 3(2)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 (ILPACOSA), contending that the applicants failed to serve statutory notices within six months of the debts becoming due. The applicants subsequently applied for a declaratory order or, alternatively, condonation for late service of notices. They contended that they only became aware of their right to claim and the notice requirement when they consulted an attorney in February 2020, after which statutory notices were sent in early March 2020. A dispute arose regarding discrepancies in dates on the notices and proof of posting, and the respondent opposed the application mainly on the issue of costs.

The court declared that the applicants had complied with section 3(1)(a) of ILPACOSA in respect of both claims, granted them leave to continue with the action under case number EL 840/2020, and ordered that each party pay its own costs of the application.

The judgment clarifies the application of section 3(3)(a) of ILPACOSA by confirming that, in appropriate circumstances, a debt for unlawful arrest and detention may only become due when a claimant acquires knowledge of the right to sue, including through legal advice. It underscores the importance of substance over technical formalism in statutory notice requirements and provides guidance on costs in ILPACOSA condonation or declaratory applications.