“ANNEXURE 11”
Practice Directive 61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
Case Title: DIMBULUKENI NAUYOMA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA & OTHER | Case No: HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2020/00340 | |
Division of Court: HIGH COURT (MAIN DIVISION) | ||
Heard before: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GEIER | Date reserved: On the papers | |
Delivered on: 27 October 2021 | ||
Neutral citation: Dimbulukeni Nauyoma v Government of the Republic of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2020/00340) [2021] NAHCMD 500 (27 October 2021) | ||
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
| ||
Following below are the reasons for the above order: | ||
[1] It is seldom that condonation is sought with such nonchalance, bordering on sheer arrogance, considering the cavalier attitude with which it was brought and argued on behalf of the applicant! [2] The facts underlying this condonation application are simple and straightforward :
‘I, the undersigned, KADHILA N AMOOMO do hereby make oath and state as follows:
[3] It immediately becomes clear that the application totally- and thus fatally- omits to address the main period of default, namely the period 10 November 2020 to the 24th of March 2021, when Mr Amoomo had to travel to the North. Mr Amoomo also fails to inform the Court how long it took to arrange the funeral for his late grandmother. He also fails to disclose when he returned and why he did not attend to the replying affidavit forthwith upon his undisclosed return. It is unlikely that the funeral arrangements took until the 5th of May 2021. The failure to bring the application also in this subsequent period is also not addressed at all. It is thus clear that the explanation offered is deplete, incomplete and certainly is not full and frank as it had to. The application is also defective in that it does not seek condonation for the relevant periods. It was also most certainly not brought with the required promptitude, to say the least. The respondents’ opposition was thus not ‘pedantic’ as was submitted repeatedly. [4] In such circumstances, and where the delay is egregious, as it obviously is in this instance, Mr Amoomo’s protestations pertaining to the applicant’s alleged good prospects of success do not require consideration.1 [5] The application thus admits to only one outcome, it is to be dismissed with costs and the case is postponed to 3 November 2021 at 08h30. | ||
Judge’s signature: | Note to the parties: | |
GEIER Judge | Not applicable. | |
Counsel: | ||
Applicant | Respondent | |
K Amoomo of Kadhila Amoomo Legal Practitioners | D Khama Instructed by Office of the Government Attorney |
1 See : South African Poultry Association and Others v Minister of Trade and Industry and Others 2018 (1) NR 1 (SC) at [56].
3