Prior to the promulgation of the law in 2002, different laws were applicable to different state bodies, and each law had its own statute of limitations and specific requirements for initiating proceedings. Examples of laws requiring such notification include the National Credit Act No. 34 of 2005, the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 and the Institution of Judicial Proceedings against Certain State Bodies Act No. 40 of 2002. In Haigh v. Transnet Ltd 2012(1) SA 623 (NCK), the High Court followed the reasoning of the Nicor case and concluded that Transnet was not a state body within the meaning of the Judicial Procedure Act, since it derives its powers from the SATS Act and not from the Constitution and considers them to be enabling legislation. Transnet may perform a public function, but does not fall within the definition of a state body within the meaning of the Law on Judicial Procedure. The High Court also noted that the definition in the Judicial Procedure Act and the word “certain” in the full title of the Act indicated “very clearly” that the Act would not apply to all organs of the State. (c) Any official or institution exercising an authority or function within the meaning of the Constitution or a provincial constitution within the meaning of article 142 of the Constitution; In addition, the High Court held that the company was not a statutory body of the State, although the North West Housing Corporation is represented by a member of the Executive Council for Local Government and Housing and is listed in Part C of Schedule 3 of the Financial Administration Act 1 of 1999. (a) the creditor has notified the organ of the State concerned in writing of his intention to commence the judicial proceedings in question; or The Court held that Article 41 of the Constitution, as implemented by the Framework Law, contains a narrower definition of the term “organ of the State”. Article 2(2)(g) of the Framework Law excludes `any public body which does not fall within the sphere of national, provincial or local administration`.

The Commission was regarded as such a public body and not as a State body within the meaning of the Framework Law. “It is clear that the respondent does not derive his powers or duties `for the purposes of the Constitution`, but derives his powers and duties from his enabling legislation, the North West Housing Corporation Act. It follows that the defendant is not an organ of the State within the meaning of the law. 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. In addition, the law provides that legal proceedings may be instituted against a State organ only if the plaintiff has notified in writing his intention to contest the dispute. Such written notification is not a prerequisite only if the competent organ of the State has consented in writing to the commencement of an imminent legal dispute. Disclaimer: The information provided on this site 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. Conditions for notification to a State body – When bringing an action against a State organ, it is important to note the provisions of the Act on the Initiation of Legal Proceedings against Certain State Organs, Act 40 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 3 § 1 of the Act provides: If a State organ invokes the failure of a creditor to serve notice within the meaning of the foregoing, it may apply to a competent court for a tolerating of such failure if it is satisfied that: In these circumstances, the court grants the applicant a tolerance in order to assert his claim against the organ of the State. 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.

(f) Any person for whom an organ of the State referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (e) is responsible for misconduct; It is common for individuals to be harmed as a result of the negligence of a government entity and/or its employees.