Related documents

Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund Act, 2000
Act 26 of 2000
- Published in Government Gazette 2457 on 27 December 2000
- Assented to on 21 December 2000
- Commenced on 15 May 2002 by Commencement of the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund Act, 2000
- [This is the version of this document from 27 December 2000 and includes any amendments published up to 11 July 2025.]
Part I – PRELIMINARY
1. Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates -“additional member of the Board” means an additional member of the Board appointed under section 6(2)(a);“agreement” means a written agreement referred to in section 18(1);“approved institution of higher education” means an institution of higher education approved by the Minister under section 2;“banking institution” means a banking institution authorised under the Banking Institutions Act, 1998 (Act No. 2 of 1998), to conduct business as such;“Board” means the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund Board referred to in section 5;“financial assistance” means financial assistance provided to a student under an agreement in order to enable such student to defray, either wholly or in part, costs connected with his or her education within the meaning of this Act;“financial year” means the financial year of the Fund referred to in section 14(1);“Fund” means the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund established by section 3(1);“higher education” means all learning programmes leading to qualifications higher than grade 12 or its equivalent, and includes tertiary education as contemplated in Article 20(4) of the Namibian Constitution;“Minister” means the Minister responsible for Higher Education;“prescribed” means prescribed by regulation made under section 20;“student” means a person who -(a)is a Namibian citizen; and(b)is eligible for admission or is admitted for a course of study at an approved institution of higher education;“this Act” includes the regulations made under section 20.2. Approval of institutions of higher education
The Minister may from time to time by notice in the Gazette approve one or more institutions of higher education in respect of which students can, for the purposes of this Act, qualify for consideration for financial assistance.Part II – ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF FUND
3. Establishment of Fund
4. Object of Fund
The object of the Fund is to provide financial assistance, subject to this Act, to students in order -5. Management and control of Fund
The affairs of the Fund shall be managed and controlled by a board to be known as the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund Board, which shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions conferred or imposed upon the Board by or under this Act.6. Constitution of Board
7. Tenure and vacation of office
8. Disclosure of interest
9. Meetings and decisions of Board
10. Powers, duties and functions of Board
Subject to this Act, the Board shall be accountable and responsible for the proper management, administration and control of the financial and other affairs of the Fund, and may do or cause to be done all or any of such things that are necessary or reasonably required for or incidental to the carrying into effect of the object of the Fund, and more specifically (but without derogating from the generality of the foregoing) may -11. Committees of Board
12. Secretariat to Board
Part III – FINANCIAL MATTERS OF FUND
13. Bank account
14. Financial year, bookkeeping and accounting, and unexpended balances
15. Annual statements and auditing
16. Exemption of Fund from certain taxes, duties and levies
No income or any other tax or duty or levy imposed under any law shall be payable by the Fund.Part IV – PROVISIONS RELATING TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
17. Application for financial assistance
Any student may, subject to this Act, apply in writing to the Board for financial assistance in the manner and on an application form determined by the Board under section 10(i).18. Conditions for granting of financial assistance
Part V – MISCELLANEOUS
19. Limitation of liability
No liability shall attach to the Fund, or, in his or her personal capacity, any member or alternate member of the Board (including an additional member of the Board), any member of a committee of the Board or any employee referred to in section 12(1) in respect of anything done or omitted in the bona fide performance of any function in terms of this Act.20. Regulations
The Minister may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act with regard to any matter which the Minister may deem necessary or expedient to prescribe in order to achieve or promote the object of this Act or to effectively administer this Act, including, but not limited to -21. Rules of the Board
The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, make rules not inconsistent with this Act relating to -22. Short title and commencement
This Act shall be called the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund Act, 2001, and shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.History of this document
15 May 2002
27 December 2000 this version
21 December 2000
Cited documents 1
Act
1
Repealed
|
Documents citing this one 17
Gazette
10Judgment
6
Delict – Fraudulent representation – Elements thereof – Defendant representing to the plaintiff that a certain person was a legitimately funded student of the plaintiff and was therefore entitled to receive certain payments – Representation found to have been fraudulently made – Defendant found liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff. |
This is an appeal of certain orders of the Labour Court sitting on an appeal from an award given by an arbitrator, instituted by the appellant who was employed as Chief Executive Officer of the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund (NSFAF) from March 2013 until her dismissal on 7 February 2020. Prior to her dismissal and on 16 April 2018, the appellant was suspended from her position pending an investigation into charges for which she was facing a disciplinary hearing. On 6 February 2020, the respondent’s Board resolved to dismiss the appellant without finalising the disciplinary hearing, citing delays attributed to the appellants conduct from the date of suspension to the date of dismissal, which according to the respondent made it impossible to bring the disciplinary hearing to finality.
The respondent, dissatisfied with the arbitration award which found in favour of the appellant, appealed to the Labour court which held that the dismissal of the appellant was without a fair and valid reason and without a fair procedure being followed. However, it set aside the arbitrator’s award which reinstated the appellant and replaced it with an order directing the respondent to pay the appellant the monthly remuneration she would have received from 8 February 2020 until 15 July 2021.
On appeal to this Court is the finding of the Labour court relating to the order setting aside appellant’s reinstatement as well as an order backdating appellant’s payment of monthly remuneration to 15 July 2021. The main issue for determination in this Court is whether or not the Board’s decision of 06 February 2020 dismissing appellant was null and void on the basis that the Board was not properly constituted in terms of the NSFAF Act, therefore giving rise to other ancillary relief relating to reinstatement and payment of remuneration. The respondent noted a cross- appeal, directed against the court a quo’s finding that the dismissal of the appellant was without a fair and valid reason and without a fair procedure being followed. The respondent also attacked the court a quo’s decision ordering it to pay the appellant compensation.
Part of the issues raised by the respondent was whether or not the Minister of Higher Education, Technology and Innovation was obliged to state in the appointment letter of an additional member, the particular purpose for such appointment, and whether an additional member who was statutorily prohibited from voting at board meetings, but who voted to dismiss the appellant resulted in the decision of the Board being unfair and null and void.
Held that, a decision of the majority of the voting members of the board present at a meeting constituted a decision of the board. The fact that a member who was not entitled to vote, voted to dismiss the appellant at a properly constituted board meeting, did not invalidate the votes of the majority of the members entitled to vote at the meeting. The decision taken was therefore validly taken and at a properly constituted board meeting.
Held that, the fact that the purpose for which an additional member had been appointed was not reflected in the letter of appointment did not invalidate the appointment of the additional member and the decision taken to dismiss the appellant cannot for that reason alone be null and void.
The evidence presented during the arbitration proceedings on behalf of the respondent described the relationship with the appellant as ‘unbearable’, acrimonious’, disruptive and uncooperative’, no trust in the leadership of the appellant’. The appellant herself stated that the animosity and hatred towards her by the board were ‘acutely raw’.
Held that, the relationship of trust and confidence between the appellant and the respondent had irretrievably broken down based on substantially the conduct of the appellant in the circumstances of this case, which made the continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
Another issue was whether a medical report was required in addition to a medical certificate in order to determine the appellant’s ability to attend the disciplinary hearing.
Held that, in respect of the medical certificate tendered in support of an application for a postponement of the disciplinary hearing, the employer is not required to confine itself to a medical certificate but is entitled to request a medical report from a doctor as proof of illness, especially in the case where the sick leave has been granted for an extended period. This would apply not only in the case of the employee’s physical inability to perform normal work activities but also to his or her mental ability.
Held further that, the respondent acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies by demanding to be provided with a medical report or for appellant to be subjected to an examination by a psychiatrist of its choice, since it was important to establish whether the appellant was genuinely incapacitated and that the medical certificate was not employed as a delaying tactic by the appellant.
Held that, the breakdown in the relationship between the appellant and the respondent provided a valid and fair reason for the dismissal of the appellant and renders the dismissal substantively fair.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal is upheld with costs. |
Act
1Subsidiary legislation
Title
|
|
---|---|
Government Notice 246 of 2001 |