CASE NO.: (P) A 282//2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between:
CONSTANCIA MURUKO 1st ApplicantWILFRED KAZEURUA 2nd Applicant
GODFRIEDINE KAMBATUKU 1st RespondentWILHELMINE KAUNE HENGUA 2nd Respondent
KAMUHANGA S HOVEKA 3rd Respondent
ROSEN KAUTA KAUNE 4th Respondent
UAUNDJA MBAUKUA 5th Respondent
TJIRITJA MERORO 6th Respondent
KAURE TITEL KAUNE 7th Respondent
KAHUI KANDJOU 8th Respondent
KANGUU KANANGANDA 9th Respondent
KATJAZAPI KAUNE 10th Respondent
KAZASU HOVEKA 11th Respondent
VATA KAUNE 12th Respondent
KANDORE KANDJOU 13th Respondent
KAIHUUE KATJIOVA 14th Respondent
KUVERI KANDJOU 15th Respondent
KAANA KAMBATUKU 16th Respondent
JOONI MUNJONE 17th Respondent
JOGBETH KAMUHANGA 18th Respondent
CORAM: PARKER, J
Heard on: 2006 November 28
Delivered on: 2006 December 6
 In this application brought on notice of motion, the applicants seek an order in the following terms:
1.That the Court condones the applicants’ non-compliance with the Rules of this Court (“the Rules”) and the time periods prescribed therein in so far as these have not been complied with, and direct that this matter be heard as one of urgency as envisaged in Rule 6 (12) of the Rules.
2.That a rule nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause on a date to be determined by the Honourable Court why the following order should not be made:
2.1ordering first, second, third, fourth, seventh and eighth respondents to restore second applicant’s possession of the unlawfully dispossessed 130 head of cattle (including any offspring);
2.2ordering the respondents to restore first applicant’s possession of the following items unlawfully dispossessed:
2.2.1two plastic dams;
2.2.2176 sheep (including any offspring);
2.2.3113 goats (including any offspring);
2.2.5the house situated in the Okoukambe Village;
2.2.6120 cattle (including any offspring);
2.2.7the zinc sheets;
2.2.8five black cooking pots;
2.2.9a feeding trough;
2.2.10two water troughs;
2.2.12100 metres of black plastic piping;
2.2.13one water tap;
2.2.14the 1972 Ford F pick-up motor vehicle;
2.2.15the trailer used for the conveyance of livestock;
2.2.16the axle belonging to the aforementioned trailer.
2.3ordering respondents to pay the costs of this application on a scale between attorney and client.
3.That the order in terms of subparagraphs 2.1 and 2.2 hereof shall serve as an interim interdict with immediate effect pending the finalisation of this application.
4.That the Court grants the applicants such further or alternative relief as the Court may deem fit.
 The application, filed on 12 October 2006, was brought on urgent basis but it was heard in due course on 29 November 2006, after it had been postponed twice, on 13 November and 20 November 2006. The respondents had the opportunity to file answering papers before the hearing.
 Before I deal with the main application, I wish to treat the preliminary applications that were brought by the applicants so as to get them out of the way at this stage: