NOT REPORTABLE 
CASE NO.: A 74/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

In the matter between:

and

Delivered on:       	2011 March 25

[1] The applicant, represented by Mr. Vaatz, has brought an application by notice of motion; and the applicant says that the application is brought-

'...in terms of Article 18 of the (Namibian) Constitution ... for an order in the following terms:
(1) Reviewing and correcting or setting aside the decision by the Respondent against the Applicant for the years 2000 to 2008 claiming an amount of N$100,769.09 in respect of interest and N$51,339.22 in respect of arrear tax. Such a high claim for arrear interest is unfair and unreasonable and thus subject to review in terms of Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia.
(2) Granting such further and/or alternative relief as this Honourable Court may deem it;
(3) Ordering the Respondent, to pay the costs of this application in the event of the matter being opposed.

The respondent, represented by Ms Potgieter, has moved to reject the application.

[2] It is wrong to say that the application has 'been brought in terms of Article 18 of the (Namibian) Constitution'; for, Article 18 merely guarantees a particular basic human right to individuals, sc. the right to 'administrative justice'. The application is brought rather in terms of Article 25(2) to 'enforce or protect such a right Chapter 3 of the Namibian Constitution contains basic human rights and an enforcement mechanism in terms of Article 25(2) in order to make those basic human rights justiciable in respect of individuals. The basic human rights are not inherently justiciable. The justiciability of the basic human rights in Namibia is provided for by the Constitution; and that is the basis upon which 'aggrieved persons' are 'entitled to approach the Court to enforce or protect' any of those basic human rights, including the Article 18 right.

This conclusion leads me to the next level of the enquiry; and I note at the threshold that this matter falls within an extremely short and simple compass.

[4] It is incontrovertible and clear on the papers that the grievance of the applicant is that the respondent took a wrong decision on the facts or the law and so the applicant wants the decision to be set aside for that reason.

'Purpose of judicial review

[32] I respectfully accept Baxter's exposition on 'reasonableness' (the Baxter categories) as apropos to the enquiry presently being undertaken and so I adopt his exposition; that is to say, in my opinion, Baxter's explanation of the term 'reasonable' is a correct interpretation and application of the requirement of 'act reasonably' in Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution. '

Act, 1981 (Act No. 24 of 1981) (as amended) (the Act), that is, that the

[13] For the aforegoing reasoning and conclusions, I firmly hold that the applicant has failed to discharge the onus cast on him to satisfy the Court that good grounds exist to review the decision of the respondent.

[14]   In the result, the application is dismissed with costs.

PARKER J

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

Mr A Vaatz

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
Ms C Potgieter