Coetzee v Minister of Law and Order and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1984 (4) SA 752 (E)

Coetzee v Minister of Law and Order and Others
1984 (4) SA 752 (E)

1984 (4) SA p752

Citation	1984 (4) SA 752 (E)
Court	Eastern Cape Division
Judge	van Rensburg J
Heard	August 13, 1984
Judgment	September 3, 1984

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Police — Action against Minister — Notice in terms of s 32 (1) of Police Act 7 of 1958 — What sufficient — Letter, constituting notice, making no mention of intention of instituting action should liability be denied — Even if it did, necessary allegation that any action would be instituted C against any or all of the defendants absent — Court adopting robust and practical approach and holding that intention to institute action could properly be implied from the letter — Also perfectly clear from letter that reference in heading to "SA Polisie en Andere" implied action being taken against first defendant, as Minister of Department concerned, D and against second and third defendants, they being named in letter as responsible for the assault — Letter amounting to sufficient compliance with s 32 (1) of Act 7 of 1958.

Headnote : Kopnota

The plaintiff had instituted an action against the defendants for damages he allegedly suffered as a result of an assault on E him by second and third defendants, committed while they were acting within the course and scope of their employment as servants of the first defendant, namely as members of the South African Police force. Prior to the institution of the action, plaintiff, in purported compliance with s 32 (1) of the Police Act 7 of 1958, which provided that notice in writing of such an action should be given to the defendant at least one month F before the commencement thereof, had addressed a telegram to the Commissioner of Police by way of his attorney, stating that plaintiff had been assaulted by two policemen during 1982 and that he was claiming damages in the amount of R10 000 as a result of it. A letter was also addressed to the Commissioner, headed "J L Coetzee/SA Polisie en Andere", repeating the statement in the telegram and referring to it by saying that it G had been sent due to the timefactor. The letter concluded by requesting the Minister to acknowledge receipt of it and to indicate his attitude towards it. The first defendant, during the adjudication upon a stated case formulated by the parties, contended that the contents of the letter and telegram did not amount to compliance with the provisions of s 32 (1), because it made no mention of an intention to institute an action and, even if it did, no allegation was made therein that such action H would be instituted against any or all of the present defendants, thus falling short of the requirement of s 32 (1) that the notice must indicate that an action is intended against the person to whom the notice is given.

Held, adopting a practical and robust approach, that the intention to institute an action could properly be implied from the letter, if regard was had to, inter alia, the fact that I reference had been made in the letter to the timefactor and that this could only be a reference to the time limit laid down by s 32 (1) - which indicated that the letter had been written with the provisions of s 32 (1) in mind - as well as to the fact that the claim described in the letter was a substantial one and therefore not one which the plaintiff would be likely to abandon should there be a denial of liability: the request that the recipient indicate his attitude to the letter also implied that the claim would be pursued by institution of an action.

1984 (4) SA p753

Held, further, that it was perfectly clear from the letter that A the reference to "SA Polisie en Andere" implied that action would be taken against first defendant as the appropriate Minister of the Department concerned, and against second and third defendants, they being the only persons named in the letter.

Held, therefore, that the letter amounted to sufficient compliance with the requirements of s 32 (1) of Act 7 of 1958 in respect of all three defendants. B

Case Information

Adjudication upon a stated case in terms of Rule 33 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

J W Wilshire-Jones SC for the plaintiff.

L E Leach for the defendants.

Cur adv vult. C

Postea (September 3).

Judgment

Van Rensburg J:

The plaintiff has instituted action against the D first, second and third defendants claiming payment of the sum of R6 154,36 representing damages which he alleges he has suffered as a result of an assault upon him by the second and third defendants while acting within the course and scope of their employment as servants of the first defendant.

This matter has at this stage been set down solely for E adjudication upon a stated case formulated by the...