Court name
High Court Main Division
Case number
APPEAL 219 of 2010
Case name
Longer v Minister of Safety And Security and Another
Media neutral citation
[2013] NAHCMD 376
Judge
Damaseb J










REPUBLIC
OF NAMIBIA





HIGH
COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK





JUDGMENT





Case
no: A 219/2010





NOT
REPORTABLE





DATE:
26 NOVEMBER 2013





In
the matter between:








PHILLIPUS
LONGER
….............................................................................................APPLICANT



And



THE
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND
SECURITY.........................................1ST
RESPONDENT





THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NAMIBIAN POLICE.................2ND
RESPONDENT








Neutral
citation: Longer v The Minister of Safety and Security (A 219/2010)
[2013] NAHCMD 376 (26 November 2013)





Coram: DAMASEB,
JP





Heard: 26
November 2013





Delivered:
26 November 2013 (Ex tempore)








ORDER





The
application is struck from the roll. A respondent, who wishes to seek
an order of costs may approach the court, by notice to the applicant,
seeking such an order.











JUDGMENT





Damaseb
JP:





[1]
The Appellant is a former police officer. He was charged with
misconduct arising from a criminal conviction and discharged from the
police force on 24th of October 1993. The conviction, which formed
the basis for his dismissal, was set aside in 2001. Following the
reversal of his conviction on appeal, the applicant resolved to
challenge his dismissal. There was a hurdle in his way and that
hurdle is s 39 of the Police Act which states that:


in
any civil proceedings against any person in respect of anything done
in pursuance of this Act shall be instituted within 12 months after
the course of action arose and no notice in writing of any such
proceedings and of the course thereof shall be given to the Defendant
not less than one month before it is instituted provided that the
Minister may at any time waive compliance with the provisions of the
subsection’.





[2]
Now in the case of Majiedt1
, the Supreme Court had held that s 39 is not unconstitutional.
Therefore, to bring civil proceedings against the State, in this case
the Inspector General of Police or the Minister of Safety and
Security, the applicant, being out of time as it is common cause,
needed the Minister’s waiver. He applied to the Minister for a
waiver. The Minister refused the waiver. It appears, on the one hand,
that the applicant wants to challenge the refusal of the waiver and,
on the other hand, to obtain an order of this court for his
re-instatement and payment of all his benefits for the period that he
was discharged.





[3]
The applicant has filed of record documents so numerous that it is
impossible to count them.





[4]
The file is in such a state that I do not know just what constitutes
the record in these proceedings and the exchange I just had with the
Applicant has confirmed that conclusion. There is no Index and the
documents on record are not in any particular sequence. True, he is
unrepresented, but this court has no duty to provide such assistance
to the unrepresented litigant. In some of the documents I have seen
at a cursory glance, he seems to challenge the constitutionality of
certain actions of the police and certain instruments of the police
issued under the Police Act. For example I will cite (and this is a
document dated 7th of July 2010) - and while there I want to point
out that he refers me to a subsequent document dated 2012 – and
he says in paragraph 9 of an affidavit that accompanies that document
which is ‘Notice of Action in terms of s 39 of the Police Act:
One month notice’ as he calls it; and then he gives certain
particularised paragraphs in which, he states certain relief which,
on the face of it, also looks inept. At paragraph 9 he says:




The
Applicant humbly prays and request the Hon Court to declare issued
Police 168 invalid and unconstitutional as the matter is contemplated
by Chapter 15 Article 116(2) of the Namibian Constitution whether it
was a instructions of a Inspector General of police fall foul and
violate Namibian Constitutional illegal. The law enforcement cannot
allow it to violate the Namibian Constitution. The police have to
protect the Namibian Constitution. Namibian Constitution remains
supreme law, never prescript and a live, even the Police act cannot
be above Namibian Constitution, therefore applicant request Hon Court
to look into this case on the merits.’





[5]
It goes on in paragraph 10:





Should
Hon Court dismiss this Application, the applicant request that each
party to pays the own cost, and allows applicant to appeal to Supreme
Court to consider the matter on the merits, and the dismissal of the
High Court, if Hon Court dismiss the motion. Hon Inspector General
employs. Each year thousands members, but when Applicant claims there
are no vacant posts-see attached letter. Applicant a poor man, he
cannot afford this service of legal practitioner.’





[6]
I cited those excerpts simply to show the extent of the confusion
created by the documents filed by the applicant of record. This is
probably the most incomprehensible litigation ever filed in this
court: I do not know what the applicant wants and against whom.





[7]
The Constitution guarantees everyone a right of access to court. The
fact that a litigant has no means to engage a lawyer privately should
never become a bar to him or her being afforded every reasonable
opportunity to present his or her case to the court. I am aware that
several practitioners were appointed to assist the applicant but all
withdrew. It is no place of mine to find out why. The court’s
inclination to afford a self-represented litigant the opportunity to
present his case before court is however no invitation to ‘anything
goes’ and, therefore, anarchy.





[8]
Because of it being unclear to the court as to what procedure the
applicant has chosen and what he requires by way of defined relief to
which the respondents, who under Article 12 of the Constitution also
have the right to a fair trial, can intelligently reply to, I am
compelled to strike the matter from the roll.





[9]
This matter is struck from the roll. A respondent who wishes to seek
an order of costs may approach the court, by notice to the applicant,
seeking such an order








PT
Damaseb





Judge-President





APPEARANCE





APPLICANT
IN PERSON





RESPONDENT
J !NCUBE


OF
GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS, WINDHOEK






1Ministry
of Home Affairs v Madjiedt and others 2007 (2) NR 475 (SC).