Court name
High Court
Case number
311 of 2012
Title

Noble v Government of Namibia and Others (311 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 331 (07 December 2012);

Media neutral citation
[2012] NAHC 331
Coram
Parker AJ













NOT REPORTABLE








REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA



HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK








EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT








Case no: A 311/2012













In the matter between:








TERRENCE NOBLE
.....................................................................................APPLICANT



and



THE GOVERNMENT OF
NAMIBIA ..............................................FIRST
RESPONDENT



MAGISTRATE MATULICH
......................................................SECOND
RESPONDENT



JAN OLIVIER & CO.
....................................................................THIRD
RESPONDENT



STANDARD BANK NAMIBIA
LIMITED
..................................
FOURTH RESPONDENT



NAMIBIAN POLICE
STATION COMMANDER



(WALVIS BAY)
.............................................................................FIFTH
RESPONDENT



MINISTER OF SAFETY AND
SECURITY ....................................SIXTH
RESPONDENT



DEPUTY-SHERIFF (WALVIS
BAY) .....................................SEVENTH
RESPONDENT



REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
..........................................................
EIGHTH
RESPONDENT








Neutral citation:
Noble v The Government of Namibia (A 311/2012) [2012] NAHCMD
104 (7 December 2012)








Coram: PARKER AJ



Heard: 7
December 2012



Delivered: 7
December 2012








Flynote: Practice
– Applications and motions – Urgent applications –
Applicant must satisfy the requirements of rule 6(12)(1)(b) of the
rules of court for the matter to be heard on urgent basis –
Furthermore, no urgency where urgency is self-created.








Summary: Practice
– Applications and motions – Urgent applications –
Applicant must satisfy the two requirements of rule 6(12)(12)(b) of
the rules of court for the application to be heard as one of urgency
– Court finding that applicant has failed to satisfy those
requirements – Besides court holding that the urgency is
self-created by the culpable remissness of applicant –
Consequently, Court dismissing application with costs.










ORDER










The application is struck
from the roll with costs; which costs include costs of one
instructing counsel and one instructed counsel










JUDGMENT










PARKER AJ:








[1] In this matter the applicant comes
to the court by what the applicant characterizes as urgent
application, that is, the matter should be heard on urgent basis. The
applicant appears in person; Ms Van der Westhuizen appears for the
fourth respondent. There are no appearances for the rest of the
respondents. They should therefore abide by the decision of the
court.








[2] Urgent applications are governed
by rule 6(12) of the rules of court; and rule 6(12)(b) provides that
in every affidavit or petition filed in support of any application
under para (a) of subrule (12) the applicant must set forth
explicitly the circumstances which he or she avers render the matter
urgent and the reasons why he or she claims that he or she could not
be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The rule
entails two requirements: first, the circumstances relating to
urgency which must be explicitly set out, and second, the reasons why
an applicant could not be afforded substantial redress in due course.








[3] I have read the
papers filed of record, including the applicant’s heads of
argument. I have considered the papers and oral submissions by the
applicant and counsel. On the papers I find that the applicant has
not satisfied the two requirements. He has not set out explicitly in
his affidavit the circumstances which render the matter urgent. He
has also not given reasons why he could be afforded substantial
redress in due course. See Salt and Another v Smith 1990 NR 87
at 88A-C.








[4] More important, from
the papers I find, as counsel submitted, that the applicant knew as
far back February 2012 that he faced ejectment from the property. He
has waited for about nine months to rush to court and to pray the
court to hear the matter on urgent basis.








[5] I am of the view that
urgency in this application is self-created by the culpable
remissness on the part of the applicant. Hence, I decline to condone
his non-compliance with the rules of court or to hear this
application as one of urgency. (See Bergmann v Communal Bank of
Namibia Ltd and Another
2001 NR 45).








[6] Whereupon the
application is struck from the roll with costs; which costs include
costs of one instructing counsel and one instructed counsel.




























----------------------------



C Parker



Acting Judge























APPEARANCES








APPLICANT: In Person













FOURTH RESPONDENT: C Van
der Westhuizen



Instructed by
Etzold-Duvenhage, Windhoek