This is an appeal from the court a quo wherein the appellants brought an application to declare rule 31(5)(a) of the repealed rules of the High Court unconstitutional and declare the default judgment granted by the registrar under rule 31(5)(a) invalid and null and void.

During or about 2001, Erf 4479, Khomasdal, Windhoek, was declared specially executable by the registrar of the High Court, who was empowered to do so by the now repealed rules of the High Court. Subsequently, the property was sold in execution on 24 March 2005 to Mr and Mrs Benade. During 2005 the first application was brought, seeking to set aside the sale in execution.

After that, the application by the appellants was dismissed in March 2006, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, but as a result of the non-compliance on the part of the appellants, the Supreme Court struck the application and the appeal was further not prosecuted.

During the year 2011, the appeal was declared to have lapsed. Successively, during or about 2013/2014 the appellants sought similar relief from the High Court, whereby, the Court dismissed the appellants’ application.

That is the background upon which this current appeal of the whole judgment of the Court a quo is premised.

Held that, the functus officio principle lends finality to the conduct of proceedings by marking a definitive endpoint to it.

Held that, the High Court does not have the authority to review or overturn its own decisions, nor does it have appellate jurisdiction over its own decisions.

Held that, the learned judge's finding that there was an unreasonable delay in launching the applications is sound.

Held that, the judge a quo correctly held that the High Court had fully and finally exercised its jurisdiction and could not alter or correct its order even with the benefit of hindsight.

Held that, one recognised exception to the functus principle is the rescission of a judgment, and the appellants did not apply for rescission of the judgment.

Held that, the High Court is functus officio in respect of the dispute between the appellants and the respondents.

Held further that, time is even more of the essence in a case where a constitutional challenge is launched concerning the constitutionality of a statute or rules of court.

Held that, if the appellants were aggrieved with the conduct of the respective legal practitioners, which they clearly are, they have recourse to the Body to which legal practitioners are accountable, ie the Law Society of Namibia.

Held further that, launching a personal attack on legal practitioners who are merely representing their clients and pursuing their mandate is unacceptable.

Held that, there is no reason to shield the appellants from a cost order in this appeal, and there is no basis for deviating from the normal rule that the costs should follow the result.

Held that, the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.