“What the applicant appears to have overlooked, both in the founding and replying affidavits and in argument, is that the applicant (the NPA) is not the state attorney, and the state attorney is not the NPA. The state attorney acts for and on behalf of the applicant, and owes the applicant the same duty of care as any attorney acting for a client in the private sector. Equally, the NPA as a client of the state attorney cannot escape the result of the latter’s negligence or the insufficiency of the explanation tendered by the state attorney. In the present matter, the deafening silence of the applicant or any of its officials in relation to the conduct of the review and the application in terms of Rule 11 and in particular, their failure to provide any evidence as to what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the applications were prosecuted with due diligence, suggests a degree of disinterest so as to amount to wilful default”.
Van Niekerk J in National Prosecuting Authority v Ramushowana NO (JR2774/2012) [2015] ZALCJHB 243 (3 August 2015) at para [13].