Urikhob v S (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2023/00118) [2024] NAHCMD 192 (19 April 2024)

Case Title:

Nikodemus Urikhob Plaintiff

and

The State Republic of Namibia Defendant

Case No:

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2023/00118

Division of Court:

Main Division

Heard on:

19 March 2024

Heard before:

Honourable Mr Justice Usiku

Delivered on:

19 April 2024

Neutral citation: Urikhob v The State Republic of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2023/00118) [2024] NAHCMD 192 (19 April 2024)

Order:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is struck from the roll on account that the application is not properly before this court, as the order in respect of which leave to appeal is sought, is not an ‘interlocutory order’ within the meaning of s 18(3) of the High Court Act, therefore, the applicant does not require leave from this court to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. I make no order as to costs.

3. The matter is removed from the roll and is regarded finalised.

Reasons for order:

USIKU J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the applicant for leave to appeal to the supreme Court against an order made by this court on 15 February 2024.

[2] On 15 February 2024, this court dismissed the applicant’s application, with costs. The applicant now seeks leave from this court to appeal to the Supreme Court. There is no opposition to the applicant’s application for leave to appeal.

[3] At the hearing of the present application, I requested the applicant to address me on why he is of the view that leave of this court is necessary in the circumstances. The applicant, who is a lay-litigant, could not give a coherent explanation.

Analysis

[4] In my opinion, the order granted on 15 February 2024 is not an order or judgment ‘pronounced by the court upon matters incidental to the main dispute, preparatory to or during the progress of the litigation’.¹

[5] The order dated 15 February 2024 disposed of the whole of the applicant’s application, and the applicant is no longer a party to any live proceedings before this court.

[6] As the order in question is not an interlocutory order, the provisions of s 18(3) of the High Court Act have no application and the applicant does not require leave of this court to appeal to the Supreme Court. It, therefore, follows that the applicant’s application for leave to appeal is not properly before this court and stands to be struck from the roll.

[7] In the result, I make the following order:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is struck from the roll on account that the application is not properly before this court, as the order in respect of which leave to appeal is sought, is not an ‘interlocutory order’ within the meaning of s 18(3) of the High Court Act, therefore, the applicant does not require leave from this court to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. I make no order as to costs.

3. The matter is removed from the roll and is regarded finalised.

Judge’s signature

Note to the parties:

B Usiku

Judge

Not applicable

Counsel:

Applicant:

Respondent:

N Urikhob (in-person)

Windhoek

No appearance