High Court Main Division http://namiblii.org/ en Strauss v Strauss (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 349 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 500 (23 September 2022); http://namiblii.org/na/judgment/high-court-main-division/2022/500 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Strauss v Strauss (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 349 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 500 (23 September 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mariana</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 10/03/2022 - 19:56</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Applications – Urgency – Requirements prescribed by rule 73(4) of the Rules of Court restated – Applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course – Applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making – Applicant failed to put forward reasons rendering the matter urgent and why he</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> would not receive substantial redress in due course</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> – </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Application struck for lack of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicant is the appointed executor in the deceased estate of the late Mr and Mrs Strauss. The first respondent is the biological son of the deceased couple and the third respondent is his life partner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr and Mrs Strauss passed away on 1 and 2 July 2021, respectively. In November 2021, the first and third respondents took occupation of one of the deceaseds farm, Farm Steinfeld situated in Keetmanshoop. It was the applicant’s case that he had not given the respondents permission to reside on Farm Steinfeld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicant launched an application on an urgent basis on 1 August 2021, seeking to interdict the first respondent from interfering in the management and control of the assets of the deceaseds situated on Farm Steinfeld and seeking to evict the respondents from the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the first hurdle that any applicant in an urgent application must cross, is to satisfy the court that the matter is indeed urgent and meets the requirements in rule 73.</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application for urgent relief the applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course.  Coupled with this, the applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, no reasons were put forward by the applicant as to why the first and third respondents should be evicted on an urgent basis or why the applicant would not receive substantial redress in due course.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application was accordingly struck for lack of urgency. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-msword file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.namiblii.org/files/judgments/nahcmd/2022/500/2022-nahcmd-500.doc" type="application/msword; length=131072">2022-nahcmd-500.doc</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><h4 class="text-align-center"><span style="font-size:14pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal"><shape id="Text_x0020_Box_x0020_8" o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEBAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbJSRQU7DMBBF&lt;br /&gt;&#10;90jcwfIWJU67QAgl6YK0S0CoHGBkTxKLZGx5TGhvj5O2G0SRWNoz/78nu9wcxkFMGNg6quQqL6RA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;0s5Y6ir5vt9lD1JwBDIwOMJKHpHlpr69KfdHjyxSmriSfYz+USnWPY7AufNIadK6MEJMx9ApD/oD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OlTrorhX2lFEilmcO2RdNtjC5xDF9pCuTyYBB5bi6bQ4syoJ3g9WQ0ymaiLzg5KdCXlKLjvcW893&lt;br /&gt;&#10;SUOqXwnz5DrgnHtJTxOsQfEKIT7DmDSUCaxw7Rqn8787ZsmRM9e2VmPeBN4uqYvTtW7jvijg9N/y&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JsXecLq0q+WD6m8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQA4/SH/1gAAAJQBAAALAAAAX3JlbHMvLnJl&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bHOkkMFqwzAMhu+DvYPRfXGawxijTi+j0GvpHsDYimMaW0Yy2fr2M4PBMnrbUb/Q94l/f/hMi1qR&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JVI2sOt6UJgd+ZiDgffL8ekFlFSbvV0oo4EbChzGx4f9GRdb25HMsYhqlCwG5lrLq9biZkxWOiqY&lt;br /&gt;&#10;22YiTra2kYMu1l1tQD30/bPm3wwYN0x18gb45AdQl1tp5j/sFB2T0FQ7R0nTNEV3j6o9feQzro1i&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OWA14Fm+Q8a1a8+Bvu/d/dMb2JY5uiPbhG/ktn4cqGU/er3pcvwCAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;IQDkPRGvSwIAAJUEAAAOAAAAZHJzL2Uyb0RvYy54bWysVNuO2yAQfa/Uf0C8N06sJJu14qy22aaq&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tL1Iu/0AgnGMCgwFEjv9+g6QpNntW1U/IIaBM3PmzHh5N2hFDsJ5Caamk9GYEmE4NNLsavr9efNu&lt;br /&gt;&#10;QYkPzDRMgRE1PQpP71Zv3yx7W4kSOlCNcARBjK96W9MuBFsVheed0MyPwAqDzhacZgFNtysax3pE&lt;br /&gt;&#10;16oox+N50YNrrAMuvMfTh+ykq4TftoKHr23rRSCqpphbSKtL6zauxWrJqp1jtpP8lAb7hyw0kwaD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;XqAeWGBk7+RfUFpyBx7aMOKgC2hbyUXigGwm41dsnjpmReKCxfH2Uib//2D5l8M3R2RT05ISwzRK&lt;br /&gt;&#10;9CyGQN7DQBaxOr31FV56sngtDHiMKiem3j4C/+GJgXXHzE7cOwd9J1iD2U3iy+LqacbxEWTbf4YG&lt;br /&gt;&#10;w7B9gAQ0tE7H0mExCKKjSseLMjEVHkPO5uVkjC6OvnJ6M58l6QpWnV9b58NHAZrETU0dKp/Q2eHR&lt;br /&gt;&#10;h5gNq85XYjAPSjYbqVQy3G67Vo4cGHbJJn2JwKtrypC+prezcpYL8ALi6C8I2J4N9JQo5gMeXiBj&lt;br /&gt;&#10;KLXXSD9HQkL45RbEc2zUfH6m5hNmSv1FuloGnBkldU0XVxCx9h9Mkzo6MKnyHnkrcxIj1j8rEYbt&lt;br /&gt;&#10;cBJ3C80RZXGQZwNnGTcduF+U9DgXNfU/98wJpPPJoLS3k+k0DlIyprObEg137dlee5jhCFXTQEne&lt;br /&gt;&#10;rkMevr11ctdhpNxMBu6xHVqZlIp9k7M65Y29n6pwmtM4XNd2uvXnb7L6DQAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;CAAAACEAWqpW/94AAAAJAQAADwAAAGRycy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbEyPQW/CMAyF75P2HyJP2mWChAoG&lt;br /&gt;&#10;dE0RQpt2hu2yW2hMW61x2ibQsl8/7zROtvWenr+XbUbXiAv2ofakYTZVIJAKb2sqNXx+vE1WIEI0&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ZE3jCTVcMcAmv7/LTGr9QHu8HGIpOIRCajRUMbaplKGo0Jkw9S0SayffOxP57EtpezNwuGtkotSz&lt;br /&gt;&#10;dKYm/lCZFncVFt+Hs9Pgh9er89ip5Onrx73vtt3+lHRaPz6M2xcQEcf4b4Y/fEaHnJmO/kw2iEbD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;cj7jLpGFBU82rFdLXo4aFnMFMs/kbYP8FwAA//8DAFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEB&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AAATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbQ29udGVudF9UeXBlc10ueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhADj9&lt;br /&gt;&#10;If/WAAAAlAEAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALwEAAF9yZWxzLy5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAOQ9&lt;br /&gt;&#10;Ea9LAgAAlQQAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALgIAAGRycy9lMm9Eb2MueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AFqqVv/eAAAACQEAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApQQAAGRycy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbFBLBQYAAAAABAAE&lt;br /&gt;&#10;APMAAACwBQAAAAA=&lt;br /&gt;&#10;" strokecolor="white" style="position:absolute; margin-left:494px; margin-top:10px; width:123pt; height:19.5pt; z-index:251658240" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox></textbox></shape><shape id="Text_x0020_Box_x0020_2" o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEBAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbJSRQU7DMBBF&lt;br /&gt;&#10;90jcwfIWJU67QAgl6YK0S0CoHGBkTxKLZGx5TGhvj5O2G0SRWNoz/78nu9wcxkFMGNg6quQqL6RA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;0s5Y6ir5vt9lD1JwBDIwOMJKHpHlpr69KfdHjyxSmriSfYz+USnWPY7AufNIadK6MEJMx9ApD/oD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OlTrorhX2lFEilmcO2RdNtjC5xDF9pCuTyYBB5bi6bQ4syoJ3g9WQ0ymaiLzg5KdCXlKLjvcW893&lt;br /&gt;&#10;SUOqXwnz5DrgnHtJTxOsQfEKIT7DmDSUCaxw7Rqn8787ZsmRM9e2VmPeBN4uqYvTtW7jvijg9N/y&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JsXecLq0q+WD6m8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQA4/SH/1gAAAJQBAAALAAAAX3JlbHMvLnJl&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bHOkkMFqwzAMhu+DvYPRfXGawxijTi+j0GvpHsDYimMaW0Yy2fr2M4PBMnrbUb/Q94l/f/hMi1qR&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JVI2sOt6UJgd+ZiDgffL8ekFlFSbvV0oo4EbChzGx4f9GRdb25HMsYhqlCwG5lrLq9biZkxWOiqY&lt;br /&gt;&#10;22YiTra2kYMu1l1tQD30/bPm3wwYN0x18gb45AdQl1tp5j/sFB2T0FQ7R0nTNEV3j6o9feQzro1i&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OWA14Fm+Q8a1a8+Bvu/d/dMb2JY5uiPbhG/ktn4cqGU/er3pcvwCAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;IQDPtMiHTQIAAJwEAAAOAAAAZHJzL2Uyb0RvYy54bWysVNuO2yAQfa/Uf0C8N06sJLtrxVlts01V&lt;br /&gt;&#10;aXuRdvsBBOMYFRgKJHb69R0gSd32raofEDDDmTlzZry6H7QiR+G8BFPT2WRKiTAcGmn2Nf36sn1z&lt;br /&gt;&#10;S4kPzDRMgRE1PQlP79evX616W4kSOlCNcARBjK96W9MuBFsVheed0MxPwAqDxhacZgGPbl80jvWI&lt;br /&gt;&#10;rlVRTqfLogfXWAdceI+3j9lI1wm/bQUPn9vWi0BUTTG3kFaX1l1ci/WKVXvHbCf5OQ32D1loJg0G&lt;br /&gt;&#10;vUI9ssDIwcm/oLTkDjy0YcJBF9C2kovEAdnMpn+wee6YFYkLFsfba5n8/4Pln45fHJENakeJYRol&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ehFDIG9hIGWsTm99hU7PFt3CgNfRMzL19gn4N08MbDpm9uLBOeg7wRrMbhZfFqOnGcdHkF3/ERoM&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ww4BEtDQOh0BsRgE0VGl01WZmAqPIRfLcjZFE0dbOb9ZLpJ0Basur63z4b0ATeKmpg6VT+js+ORD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;zIZVF5eUPSjZbKVS6eD2u41y5MiwS7bpSwSQ5NhNGdLX9G5RLnIBxjZ/8lcEbM8GekoU8wEvr5Ax&lt;br /&gt;&#10;lDpopJ8jISH8cgviPTZqvr9Qy5gp9d/y0DLgzCipa3o7goi1f2ea1NGBSZX3yFuZsxix/lmJMOyG&lt;br /&gt;&#10;s+pnjXfQnFAdB3lEcKRx04H7QUmP41FT//3AnEBWHwwqfDebz+M8pcN8cVPiwY0tu7GFGY5QNQ2U&lt;br /&gt;&#10;5O0m5Bk8WCf3HUbKPWXgAbuilUmw2D45q3P6OAKpGOdxjTM2PievXz+V9U8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;BgAIAAAAIQBPpHKx3wAAAAkBAAAPAAAAZHJzL2Rvd25yZXYueG1sTI9Bb8IwDIXvk/YfIiPtMkFC&lt;br /&gt;&#10;kWB0dRFCm3YGdtktNKataJK2CbTs1887bSfbek/P38s2o23EjfpQe4cwnykQ5ApvalcifB7fpy8g&lt;br /&gt;&#10;QtTO6MY7QrhTgE3++JDp1PjB7el2iKXgEBdSjVDF2KZShqIiq8PMt+RYO/ve6shnX0rT64HDbSMT&lt;br /&gt;&#10;pZbS6trxh0q3tKuouByuFsEPb3frqVPJ89e3/dhtu/056RCfJuP2FUSkMf6Z4Ref0SFnppO/OhNE&lt;br /&gt;&#10;g7Car7hLRJiuebJhvVzwckJYKAUyz+T/BvkPAAAA//8DAFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AOEBAAATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbQ29udGVudF9UeXBlc10ueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ADj9If/WAAAAlAEAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALwEAAF9yZWxzLy5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AM+0yIdNAgAAnAQAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALgIAAGRycy9lMm9Eb2MueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AAAhAE+kcrHfAAAACQEAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApwQAAGRycy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbFBLBQYAAAAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;BAAEAPMAAACzBQAAAAA=&lt;br /&gt;&#10;" strokecolor="white" style="position:absolute; margin-left:478px; margin-top:-6px; width:123pt; height:19.5pt; z-index:251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox></textbox></shape>REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></h4> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RULING URGENT APPLICATION </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                            </b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">CASE NO.: HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2022/00349</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HERMI STRAUSS                                                                     APPLICANT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HERMIAS CORNELIUS STRAUSS                                             1<sup>st</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MARIA MAGDALENA STRAUSS                                               2<sup>nd</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">LESTER VAN ROOYEN                                                             3<sup>rd</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ANDY HOLLAND                                                                      4<sup>th</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N.O.                                        5<sup>th</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ADVANCE WEALTH MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD                         6<sup>th </sup>RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-127.6pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Neutral citation</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%">:            </span></span></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Strauss v Strauss </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2022/00349) [2022] NAHCMD 500 (23 September 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        RAKOW J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:          2 September 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:    23 September 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Flynote</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:       </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Applications – Urgency – Requirements prescribed by rule 73(4) of the Rules of Court restated – Applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course – Applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making – Applicant failed to put forward reasons rendering the matter urgent and why he</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> would not receive substantial redress in due course</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> – </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Application struck for lack of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Summary</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:    </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicant is the appointed executor in the deceased estate of the late Mr and Mrs Strauss. The first respondent is the biological son of the deceased couple and the third respondent is his life partner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr and Mrs Strauss passed away on 1 and 2 July 2021, respectively. In November 2021, the first and third respondents took occupation of one of the deceaseds farm, Farm Steinfeld situated in Keetmanshoop. It was the applicant’s case that he had not given the respondents permission to reside on Farm Steinfeld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicant launched an application on an urgent basis on 1 August 2021, seeking to interdict the first respondent from interfering in the management and control of the assets of the deceaseds situated on Farm Steinfeld and seeking to evict the respondents from the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the first hurdle that any applicant in an urgent application must cross, is to satisfy the court that the matter is indeed urgent and meets the requirements in rule 73.</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application for urgent relief the applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course.  Coupled with this, the applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, no reasons were put forward by the applicant as to why the first and third respondents should be evicted on an urgent basis or why the applicant would not receive substantial redress in due course.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application was accordingly struck for lack of urgency. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ORDER</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <ol><li style="margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application is struck for lack of urgency.  The issue of costs to stand over until the finalization of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p> </p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">URGENT APPLICATION JUDGMENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RAKOW J:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Introduction</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]      The applicant in these proceedings, Mr Hermie Strauss is the Executor appointed by the fifth respondent in the estate of the late Johannes Mattheus Strauss and Martina Daffina Strauss (nee Louw). He is the brother of the deceased Mr Strauss.  The first respondent is Hermias Cornelius Strauss, the son of the deceased Strauss couple and the nephew of the applicant.  The second respondent is Maria Magdalena Strauss, the ex-wife of the first respondent.  She is not opposing the application.  The third respondent is Lester van Rooyen, the life partner of the first respondent.  The fourth respondent is Andy Hollard, a family friend of the first respondent.  The first, third and fourth respondents are opposing this application.  The fifth respondent is the Master of the High Court of Namibia and the six respondent is the agent duly authorized by the applicant to deal with the estates of the deceased persons. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Background </span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]      The first respondent is the sole biological child of the late Mr and Mrs Strauss who passed away on 1 July 2021 and 2 July 2021, respectively. He stated that he grew up on the Farm Steinfeld and resided there during his childhood. He further farmed together with his father, and helped pay for the farm during the period 1992 -1997, whereafter he moved to Cape Town.  He further indicated that he regularly visited with his parents and during 2021 before his parents passed away, he was planning to return to Farm Steinfeld in January 2022 permanetly, to assist them on the farm and in the workshop.  His parents passed away as set out above and in the Wills dated 15 April 2018, both Mr and Mrs Strauss named each other as the beneficiaries of their respective estates and if they should die within 30 days from each other, they named the first and second respondents as their heirs.  These wills also appoint the applicant as executor.  These wills were accepted by the Master of the High Court but challenged by the first respondent in that he alleges that they were not signed in the presence of the witnesses and he further attached statements of those witnesses to his answering affidavit.  This matter is still pending in this court under case HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]      The first respondent received oral permission from the applicant to move onto and reside on farm Hoas, also a farm belonging to his deceased parents, during August 2021. The house on this farm did not have all the comforts of the house on farm Steinfeld as there was no telecommunication connection, the roads on the farm were badly maintained and it had poor sanitation facilities. The house on the farm Steinfeld on the other hand, stood unoccupied since his parents’ passing and was equipped with solar power, functioning telecommunication and sanitation facilities.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]      There was also some property, to wit a Landrover and a trailer, of the first respondent on farm Steinfeld which he requested back from the applicant in a WhatsApp message on 16 September 2021.  This request was refused by the applicant.  After he then told the applicant that he will remove his vehicle from farm Steinfeld, he was informed to leave farm Hoas in an email dated 20 September 2021.  He had nowhere to go and also felt that the applicant had no valid reason to order him from farm Hoas. The first respondent then proceeds and sets out in detail incidents at farm Steinfeld which gave him grounds for concern about the management of the estate of the deceased.  He, for example, followed up on a number of oryx which were hunted on the farm and reported the illegal hunting and slaughtering of 44 oryx at Keetmanshoop by the farm manager, Mr Kotze, who was appointed by the applicant to manage the farm.  He also complained that Mr Kotze, on instruction of the applicant, sold certain Landrover parts from the garage that were being operated at Farm Steinfeld, to third parties for far below the market price for these parts.  This was during November 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]      He and the third respondent, his life partner, moved to Farm Steinfeld during November 2021, to stop further deterioration of the farm and everything on it. His intention was to start caring for the items that form part of the estate and which was just standing around without daily care.  The first and third respondents left Farm Steinfeld together on 23 May 2022 for medical care and surgery.  This was only a temporary arrangement and the first and third respondents returned to Farm Steinfeld on 17 July 2022. The fourth respondent, who was a family friend, accompanied the other two respondents to the farm on request of the first respondent to assist with mechanical work to the generator on the farm which was overheating.  The fourth respondent left the farm after assisting with the generator on 28 July 2022 and returned to South Africa. This was before this application was served.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]      It further seems that the applicant was informed by Mr Kotze that upon their return from South Africa, the first, third and fourth respondents brought with them three Landrovers and numerous Landrover parts which seems to be destined for mechanical or maintenance repairs at the garage situated at Farm Steinfeld. Two of the Landrovers had since left the farm with one remaining.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]      In a letter dated 29 June 2022 from the legal representative of the first respondent, the first respondent sought to be allowed 50 percent vegetation for 1 sheep on 5 hectares or 1 cow on 35 hectares from 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022.  He further asked to be allowed 50 percent workspace in the garage to carry on with the business and that he be allowed to manage the livestock on the farm.  On 12 July 2022, the sixth respondent informed the legal representative of the first respondent that the request was denied.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]      On 22 July 2022, the applicant gave instructions to his legal practitioners of record to demand that the first respondent be requested to vacate the farm Steinfeld by no later than 27 July 2022.  Despite this, he and the third and fourth respondents remained on the farm.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The content of the various affidavits</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]      The applicant indicated that he never gave the third and fourth respondents permission to reside on the Farm Steinfeld, neither did he give the fourth respondent permission to use the garage, known as Steinfeld Garage and Tools.  He further alleged that the first respondent took possession of the keys of the workshop and remains in control of the workshop.  The first and fourth respondents conduct business at the workshop and this is without the consent of the applicant.  This was for the two weeks preceding the application.  Another concern of the applicant was that the farm manager, Mr Kotze, had no control over the business conducted at the workshop on the farm and that Mr Kotze was authorized to manage the affairs of the farm Steinfeld.  Also that Mr Kotze gave the keys to the garage to the first respondent out of fear and that he has no control over the equipment and products utilized by the first respondent over the past two weeks preceding the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]    The first respondent denies having the only key to the garage and indicates that Mr Kotze indeed has another key.  He further stated that during the two weeks preceding this application, he arrived many times at the workshop after Mr Kotze has already unlocked it.  He never intervened with Mr Kotze’s duties and Mr Kotze could carry on with his duties in the workshop and on the farm as always.  He further stated that where he used the workshop in the garage it was to do maintenance and upkeep on the farm as well as the vehicles of the estate. He further did conversions on Landrovers for farmers and mostly did it out of the back of his own vehicle with his own tools.  He would use tools from time to time from the workshop but it would be returned at the end of the day.  If he used parts from the garage, he would ask Mr Kotze to record it.  The work he has been doing was kept separate from the work Mr Kotze does and to generate an income for the first respondent.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]    The first respondent maintained that he, as an heir is entitled to maintain the farm as well as reside and maintain the family home while the administration of the estates are being finalized. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]    The applicant seeks an order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">1.    Condoning applicant’s non-compliance with the Rules of this Court (“the Rules”) insofar as it relates to the forms and service of the application in terms of Rule 73(3) of the Rules and directing that this matter be heard as one of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That an interim interdict be granted in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> That the first respondent with immediate effect be interdicted from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the management and control of any of the items constituting assets in the estates of the late Johannes Mattheus Strauss and late Martina Daffina Strauss situated on Farm 117, Steinfeld, Keetmanshoop, Republic of Namibia pending the final determination of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862; and   </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the first, third and fourth respondents be ordered to vacate Farm 117, Steinfeld, Keetmanshoop, Republic of Namibia, together with all their goods and belongings, within 7 days from date of this order, pending the final determination of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the costs of this application be borne, jointly and severally, by such respondents who may elect to oppose this application, which costs shall include the costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Further and/or alternative relief as the facts may justify.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The arguments</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]    On behalf of the applicant it was argued that the applicant has a duty to both the heirs to protect the assets of the estate.  The first respondent as heir, only acquires an enforceable right once the applicant has drawn up a liquidation and distribution account and thereafter compliance with section 35 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.  It was also argued that the first respondent consented to the order prayed for under 2.1 above.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]    Regarding the challenge to urgency by the first and third respondents, it was argued that the possible situation rendering this application urgent occurred on 17 July 2022, when the first and third respondents together with the fourth respondent returned to Farm Steinfeld. On 22 July 2022, the applicant through his legal practitioners, informed the first respondent that he and the other respondents should leave the farm by 27 July 2022. Shortly after that, on 1 August 2022, the application was issued.  It was further true that the applicant afforded the respondents ample time to file their opposing papers.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]    In the answering affidavit of the first respondent much is made of the manner in which the applicant conducts the affairs of the Estate Late Strauss but no counter application to remove the applicant as executor was brought and those allegations should be ignored as they are irrelevant to the current proceedings. It was further argued that if the applicant satisfies the requirements of law for eviction relief then that part of the order must be granted. It was further argued that the third respondent does not begin to assert a right to remain on the estate late property against the will of the executor. The fourth respondent apparently left the country before being served with the application and is no longer on the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    On behalf of the respondents it was argued that the applicant basically seeks interim relief to interdict the first respondent from interfering with the management and control of the estate assets and the eviction of the first, second and fourth respondents from the farm Steinfeld. The issues are, therefore, whether the first and third respondents could exercise occupation on Farm Steinfeld and whether the first respondent is interfering with the management of the said farm.  The associated issue is therefore whether a case has been made out for urgent relief and whether the requirements of interim relief was met. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    It was argued that the first and third respondents already moved onto farm Steinfeld in November 2021. They resided there until April 2022, whereafter they returned again in July 2022. It therefore follows that, the first respondent has been residing on Farm Steinfeld for some time without the applicant raising any action.  The reason seemingly, why the applicant now raised the matter as one of urgency seems to be that the first respondent was using all the facilities and spare parts belonging to the estate.  This allegation, however, arises from speculation and uncertainty and is opposed by the first respondent’s factually setting out of what he indeed has done since his return to the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    The fourth respondent in his papers further claims that he no longer occupies the farm and that there is no justifying the relief sought against him.  This relief should therefore be dismissed from the onset.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Urgency</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]     The first hurdle that any applicant in an urgent application must cross, is to satisfy the court that the matter is indeed urgent and meets the requirements in rule 73. The applicant in his papers, which was then also argued in court, insisted that he met the requirements for urgency.  In an application for urgent relief the applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course.  Coupled with this, the applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making.</span></span></span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[20]    The parties address the matter of urgency in their arguments and heads of argument.  Rule 73(4) sets out the requirements for an application to be dealt with on an urgent basis.  The applicant ‘in an affidavit filed in support of an application under subrule (1), the applicant must set out explicitly – </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">'(a)          the circumstances which he or she avers render the matter urgent; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(b)        the reasons why he or she claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]    The understanding is that both these averments must be contained in the affidavit of the applicant before a matter can be considered on an urgent basis.  The logical sequence will be that as soon as a case is made out for urgent relief, rule 73(3) comes into play, and the court may then dispense with the forms and service provided in these rules and dispose of the application in such manner and in accordance with such procedure as the court considers fair and appropriate.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    The plaintiff should not only pay lip service to these requirements but it should be substantively shown that they were met.  In essence, the applicant should show to the court why they should be allowed to ‘jump the que’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The requirements of Rule 73(4)</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[23]    In </span></span></span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Nghiimbwasha and Another v Minister of Justice and Others,</span></span></span></i><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> the court dealt with the interpretation of the word ‘must’ contained in rule 73(4) as well as the responsibility of an applicant in a matter alleged to be urgent.  Masuku J states at para that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">‘[11]     The first thing to note is that the said rule is couched in peremptory language regarding what a litigant who wishes to approach the court on urgency must do. That the language employed is mandatory in nature can be deduced from the use of the word “must” in rule 73 (4). In this regard, two requirements are placed on an applicant regarding necessary allegations to be made in the affidavit filed in support of the urgent application. It stands to reason that failure to comply with the mandatory nature of the burden cast may result in the application for the matter to be enrolled on urgency being refused.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[12] The first allegation the applicant must “explicitly” make in the affidavit relates to the circumstances alleged to render the matter urgent. Second, the applicant must “explicitly” state the reasons why it is alleged he or she cannot be granted substantial relief at a hearing in due course. The use of the word “explicitly”, it is my view is not idle nor an inconsequential addition to the text. It has certainly not been included for decorative purposes. It serves to set out and underscore the level of disclosure that must be made by an applicant in such cases.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[13] In the English dictionary, the word “explicit” connotes something “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” This therefore means that a deponent to an affidavit in which urgency is claimed or alleged, must state the reasons alleged for the urgency “clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt”. This, to my mind, denotes a very high, honest and comprehensive standard of disclosure, which in a sense results in the deponent taking the court fully in his or her confidence; neither hiding nor hoarding any relevant and necessary information relevant to the issue of urgency.’</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    The qualification of rule 73(4) by adding ‘explicitly’ to the understanding of the case that must be set out in the affidavits supporting the rule 73 application has been supported by our courts in a number of occasions (see <i>Fuller v Shigwele<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> and <i>Bank Windhoek Ltd v Mofuka and another<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>).  Parties are not to </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">underestimate the level of disclosure that must be made by an applicant. The court should be informed frankly and taken into the confidence of the applicant.  Applicants seeking an indulgence from court to hear a matter on an urgent basis should ‘clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt’, set out their case in the affidavits before court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    The second leg of rule 73(4) that needs to be satisfied for a matter to be considered as urgent is that the applicant is to provide under rule 73(4)</span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(b)</span></i> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">‘the reasons why he or she claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.’</span></span></span>  <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants insisted that there is no other remedy available for them, other than bringing an urgent application</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    The argument by the first respondent is that the applicant already chose the process to obtain substantial redress when they filed an appeal application. The fact that they were instructed to bring a condonation application does not negate the ‘afforded substantial redress’ available to the applicant through the appeal process to the third respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Self-created urgency</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    In <i>Bergmann v Commercial Bank of Namibia Ltd and Another,</i><a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Maritz J (as he then was) made the following observations:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">'The Court's power to dispense with the forms and service provided for in the Rules of Court in urgent applications is a discretionary one. That much is clear from the use of the word "may" in Rule 6(12). One of the circumstances under which a court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, may decline to condone  non-compliance with the prescribed forms and service, notwithstanding the apparent urgency of the application, is when the applicant, who is seeking the indulgence, has created the urgency either mala fides or through his or her culpable remissness or inaction. Examples thereof are to be found in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Another v Anthony Black Films (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3)  I  SA 582 (W) and <i>Schweizer Reneke Vleismaatskappy (Edms) Bpk v Die Minister van Landbou en Andere</i> 1971 (1) PH F11 (T).'</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    In <i>Twentieth Century Fox Films Corporation supra; </i>and<i> Schweizer-Renecke Vleis Maatskappy (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Landbou en Andere</i>,<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the court held the view that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                 ‘. . . </span></span></span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">when the applicant, who is seeking the indulgence, has created the emergency, either <i>mala fides</i> or through her culpable  remissness or inaction, he cannot succeed on the basis of urgency.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Substantial redress at a hearing in due course</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]      The second requirement that an applicant in an urgent application must meet, is to show to the satisfaction of the court of the reasons why he or she claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.  This is a substantive requirement and must be specifically addressed in the papers before court.  In</span></span></span> <i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Maritima Consulting Services CC</span></span></span></i><a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Parker J said the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">‘. . .the rule entails two requirements: first, the circumstances relating to urgency which must be explicitly set out, and second, the reasons why an applicant claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress in due course. It is well settled that for an applicant to succeed in persuading the court to grant the indulgence sought that the matter be heard on urgent basis the applicant must satisfy both requirements.‘</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Discussion</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]      The applicant did in fact attempt to put facts before court to show what exactly renders the application urgent.  The problem for the court, however, comes with the facts provided to show that substantial redress cannot be obtained in due course.  The confirmatory affidavit of Mr Kotze only refers to the use of the workshop at the garage by the fourth respondent, although the first respondent admitted that he used some of the tools of the garage but that it was to assist with the upkeep of the farm infrastructure and vehicles.  He further indicated that if he took parts from the garage, he instructed Mr Kotze to make a note of it.  The fourth respondent is further no longer at the farm and therefore there is no fear that he will continue working in the workshop of the garage.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    The other complaint of Mr Kotze is that the first respondent took the keys of the garage.  Although this is admitted by the first respondent, it seems that Mr Kotze has another set of keys, so the fact that the first respondent has the keys of the garage seems not to have any impact on the work Mr. Kotze needs to perform.  There is no other indications as to where the first and third respondents interfere with the operations of the farm or caused any damage to the value of the estate.  The court presumes that the value of the products and parts used by the first respondent and recorded by Mr Kotze can be determined and eventually be deducted from his share of the Late Estate Strauss, in the event that his application to this court is not successful.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    It further seems that the first respondent gave an undertaking not to interfere with the management and control of any of the items constituting assets in the estates of the late Johannes Mattheus Strauss and late Martina Daffina Strauss and as such has been conducting his business from outside the garage and from the back of his vehicle.  No complaint seems to be forthcoming that Mr Kotze cannot perform his duties as a farm manager, nor is he prevented from performing his duties as mechanic and manager of the garage.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    The only complaint that really remains, is that the first third respondent find themselves on the Farm Steinfeld without permission and as such should be evicted.  There is no reason put forward why this should happen on an urgent basis, neither why the applicant will not receive substantial redress in due course.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    In light of the above, I find that the applicant did not provide sufficient cause for the court to find that the applicant meets the requirements set out for rendering the application urgent.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    The parties agreed that the best proposal regarding a cost order will be for the costs to be reserved, pending the finalization of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862 as the costs incurred by the executor is on behalf of the estate and will have to be paid by the estate.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The order: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application is struck for lack of urgency.  The issue of costs to stand over until the finalization of </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">----------------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">E Rakow</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">APPEARANCES:</span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPLICANT:                               J Diedricks  (with him B Viljoen)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                                                  Instructed by Viljoen &amp; Associates, Windhoek</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">FIRST, THIRD &amp; FOURTH</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RESPONDENTS:                        J Marais (SC) (with him Van Vuuren)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                                                  Instructed by Fisher, Quarmby &amp; Pfeifer, Windhoek</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> <i>Nghiimbwasha and Another v Minister of Justice and Others</i> </span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2015] NAHCMD 67 (A 38/2015; 20 March 2015).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Fuller v Shigwele</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> (A 336/2014) [2015] NAHCMD 15 (5 February 2015).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> Bank Windhoek Ltd v Mofuka and another </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">2018 (2) NR 503 (SC).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> <i>Bergmann v Commercial Bank of Namibia Ltd and Another </i></span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">2001 NR 48 (HC).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Schweizer-Renecke Vleis Maatskappy (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Landbou en Andere</span></i><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> 1971 (1) PH F11 (T).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Maritima Consulting Services CC (</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">A 295/2014) [2014] NAHCMD 350 (20 November 2014)</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-9e3231f68c99e519b619263e9722c452029f159810ac39fadc8cdd053dfdd5f1"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><h4 class="text-align-center"><span style="font-size:14pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:normal"><shape id="Text_x0020_Box_x0020_8" o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEBAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbJSRQU7DMBBF&lt;br /&gt;&#10;90jcwfIWJU67QAgl6YK0S0CoHGBkTxKLZGx5TGhvj5O2G0SRWNoz/78nu9wcxkFMGNg6quQqL6RA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;0s5Y6ir5vt9lD1JwBDIwOMJKHpHlpr69KfdHjyxSmriSfYz+USnWPY7AufNIadK6MEJMx9ApD/oD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OlTrorhX2lFEilmcO2RdNtjC5xDF9pCuTyYBB5bi6bQ4syoJ3g9WQ0ymaiLzg5KdCXlKLjvcW893&lt;br /&gt;&#10;SUOqXwnz5DrgnHtJTxOsQfEKIT7DmDSUCaxw7Rqn8787ZsmRM9e2VmPeBN4uqYvTtW7jvijg9N/y&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JsXecLq0q+WD6m8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQA4/SH/1gAAAJQBAAALAAAAX3JlbHMvLnJl&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bHOkkMFqwzAMhu+DvYPRfXGawxijTi+j0GvpHsDYimMaW0Yy2fr2M4PBMnrbUb/Q94l/f/hMi1qR&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JVI2sOt6UJgd+ZiDgffL8ekFlFSbvV0oo4EbChzGx4f9GRdb25HMsYhqlCwG5lrLq9biZkxWOiqY&lt;br /&gt;&#10;22YiTra2kYMu1l1tQD30/bPm3wwYN0x18gb45AdQl1tp5j/sFB2T0FQ7R0nTNEV3j6o9feQzro1i&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OWA14Fm+Q8a1a8+Bvu/d/dMb2JY5uiPbhG/ktn4cqGU/er3pcvwCAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;IQDkPRGvSwIAAJUEAAAOAAAAZHJzL2Uyb0RvYy54bWysVNuO2yAQfa/Uf0C8N06sJJu14qy22aaq&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tL1Iu/0AgnGMCgwFEjv9+g6QpNntW1U/IIaBM3PmzHh5N2hFDsJ5Caamk9GYEmE4NNLsavr9efNu&lt;br /&gt;&#10;QYkPzDRMgRE1PQpP71Zv3yx7W4kSOlCNcARBjK96W9MuBFsVheed0MyPwAqDzhacZgFNtysax3pE&lt;br /&gt;&#10;16oox+N50YNrrAMuvMfTh+ykq4TftoKHr23rRSCqpphbSKtL6zauxWrJqp1jtpP8lAb7hyw0kwaD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;XqAeWGBk7+RfUFpyBx7aMOKgC2hbyUXigGwm41dsnjpmReKCxfH2Uib//2D5l8M3R2RT05ISwzRK&lt;br /&gt;&#10;9CyGQN7DQBaxOr31FV56sngtDHiMKiem3j4C/+GJgXXHzE7cOwd9J1iD2U3iy+LqacbxEWTbf4YG&lt;br /&gt;&#10;w7B9gAQ0tE7H0mExCKKjSseLMjEVHkPO5uVkjC6OvnJ6M58l6QpWnV9b58NHAZrETU0dKp/Q2eHR&lt;br /&gt;&#10;h5gNq85XYjAPSjYbqVQy3G67Vo4cGHbJJn2JwKtrypC+prezcpYL8ALi6C8I2J4N9JQo5gMeXiBj&lt;br /&gt;&#10;KLXXSD9HQkL45RbEc2zUfH6m5hNmSv1FuloGnBkldU0XVxCx9h9Mkzo6MKnyHnkrcxIj1j8rEYbt&lt;br /&gt;&#10;cBJ3C80RZXGQZwNnGTcduF+U9DgXNfU/98wJpPPJoLS3k+k0DlIyprObEg137dlee5jhCFXTQEne&lt;br /&gt;&#10;rkMevr11ctdhpNxMBu6xHVqZlIp9k7M65Y29n6pwmtM4XNd2uvXnb7L6DQAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;CAAAACEAWqpW/94AAAAJAQAADwAAAGRycy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbEyPQW/CMAyF75P2HyJP2mWChAoG&lt;br /&gt;&#10;dE0RQpt2hu2yW2hMW61x2ibQsl8/7zROtvWenr+XbUbXiAv2ofakYTZVIJAKb2sqNXx+vE1WIEI0&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ZE3jCTVcMcAmv7/LTGr9QHu8HGIpOIRCajRUMbaplKGo0Jkw9S0SayffOxP57EtpezNwuGtkotSz&lt;br /&gt;&#10;dKYm/lCZFncVFt+Hs9Pgh9er89ip5Onrx73vtt3+lHRaPz6M2xcQEcf4b4Y/fEaHnJmO/kw2iEbD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;cj7jLpGFBU82rFdLXo4aFnMFMs/kbYP8FwAA//8DAFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEB&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AAATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbQ29udGVudF9UeXBlc10ueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhADj9&lt;br /&gt;&#10;If/WAAAAlAEAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALwEAAF9yZWxzLy5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAOQ9&lt;br /&gt;&#10;Ea9LAgAAlQQAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALgIAAGRycy9lMm9Eb2MueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AFqqVv/eAAAACQEAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApQQAAGRycy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbFBLBQYAAAAABAAE&lt;br /&gt;&#10;APMAAACwBQAAAAA=&lt;br /&gt;&#10;" strokecolor="white" style="position:absolute; margin-left:494px; margin-top:10px; width:123pt; height:19.5pt; z-index:251658240" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox></textbox></shape><shape id="Text_x0020_Box_x0020_2" o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAAAOEBAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbJSRQU7DMBBF&lt;br /&gt;&#10;90jcwfIWJU67QAgl6YK0S0CoHGBkTxKLZGx5TGhvj5O2G0SRWNoz/78nu9wcxkFMGNg6quQqL6RA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;0s5Y6ir5vt9lD1JwBDIwOMJKHpHlpr69KfdHjyxSmriSfYz+USnWPY7AufNIadK6MEJMx9ApD/oD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OlTrorhX2lFEilmcO2RdNtjC5xDF9pCuTyYBB5bi6bQ4syoJ3g9WQ0ymaiLzg5KdCXlKLjvcW893&lt;br /&gt;&#10;SUOqXwnz5DrgnHtJTxOsQfEKIT7DmDSUCaxw7Rqn8787ZsmRM9e2VmPeBN4uqYvTtW7jvijg9N/y&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JsXecLq0q+WD6m8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQA4/SH/1gAAAJQBAAALAAAAX3JlbHMvLnJl&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bHOkkMFqwzAMhu+DvYPRfXGawxijTi+j0GvpHsDYimMaW0Yy2fr2M4PBMnrbUb/Q94l/f/hMi1qR&lt;br /&gt;&#10;JVI2sOt6UJgd+ZiDgffL8ekFlFSbvV0oo4EbChzGx4f9GRdb25HMsYhqlCwG5lrLq9biZkxWOiqY&lt;br /&gt;&#10;22YiTra2kYMu1l1tQD30/bPm3wwYN0x18gb45AdQl1tp5j/sFB2T0FQ7R0nTNEV3j6o9feQzro1i&lt;br /&gt;&#10;OWA14Fm+Q8a1a8+Bvu/d/dMb2JY5uiPbhG/ktn4cqGU/er3pcvwCAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;IQDPtMiHTQIAAJwEAAAOAAAAZHJzL2Uyb0RvYy54bWysVNuO2yAQfa/Uf0C8N06sJLtrxVlts01V&lt;br /&gt;&#10;aXuRdvsBBOMYFRgKJHb69R0gSd32raofEDDDmTlzZry6H7QiR+G8BFPT2WRKiTAcGmn2Nf36sn1z&lt;br /&gt;&#10;S4kPzDRMgRE1PQlP79evX616W4kSOlCNcARBjK96W9MuBFsVheed0MxPwAqDxhacZgGPbl80jvWI&lt;br /&gt;&#10;rlVRTqfLogfXWAdceI+3j9lI1wm/bQUPn9vWi0BUTTG3kFaX1l1ci/WKVXvHbCf5OQ32D1loJg0G&lt;br /&gt;&#10;vUI9ssDIwcm/oLTkDjy0YcJBF9C2kovEAdnMpn+wee6YFYkLFsfba5n8/4Pln45fHJENakeJYRol&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ehFDIG9hIGWsTm99hU7PFt3CgNfRMzL19gn4N08MbDpm9uLBOeg7wRrMbhZfFqOnGcdHkF3/ERoM&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ww4BEtDQOh0BsRgE0VGl01WZmAqPIRfLcjZFE0dbOb9ZLpJ0Basur63z4b0ATeKmpg6VT+js+ORD&lt;br /&gt;&#10;zIZVF5eUPSjZbKVS6eD2u41y5MiwS7bpSwSQ5NhNGdLX9G5RLnIBxjZ/8lcEbM8GekoU8wEvr5Ax&lt;br /&gt;&#10;lDpopJ8jISH8cgviPTZqvr9Qy5gp9d/y0DLgzCipa3o7goi1f2ea1NGBSZX3yFuZsxix/lmJMOyG&lt;br /&gt;&#10;s+pnjXfQnFAdB3lEcKRx04H7QUmP41FT//3AnEBWHwwqfDebz+M8pcN8cVPiwY0tu7GFGY5QNQ2U&lt;br /&gt;&#10;5O0m5Bk8WCf3HUbKPWXgAbuilUmw2D45q3P6OAKpGOdxjTM2PievXz+V9U8AAAD//wMAUEsDBBQA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;BgAIAAAAIQBPpHKx3wAAAAkBAAAPAAAAZHJzL2Rvd25yZXYueG1sTI9Bb8IwDIXvk/YfIiPtMkFC&lt;br /&gt;&#10;kWB0dRFCm3YGdtktNKataJK2CbTs1887bSfbek/P38s2o23EjfpQe4cwnykQ5ApvalcifB7fpy8g&lt;br /&gt;&#10;QtTO6MY7QrhTgE3++JDp1PjB7el2iKXgEBdSjVDF2KZShqIiq8PMt+RYO/ve6shnX0rT64HDbSMT&lt;br /&gt;&#10;pZbS6trxh0q3tKuouByuFsEPb3frqVPJ89e3/dhtu/056RCfJuP2FUSkMf6Z4Ref0SFnppO/OhNE&lt;br /&gt;&#10;g7Car7hLRJiuebJhvVzwckJYKAUyz+T/BvkPAAAA//8DAFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQC2gziS/gAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AOEBAAATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbQ29udGVudF9UeXBlc10ueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh&lt;br /&gt;&#10;ADj9If/WAAAAlAEAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALwEAAF9yZWxzLy5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AM+0yIdNAgAAnAQAAA4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALgIAAGRycy9lMm9Eb2MueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;AAAhAE+kcrHfAAAACQEAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApwQAAGRycy9kb3ducmV2LnhtbFBLBQYAAAAA&lt;br /&gt;&#10;BAAEAPMAAACzBQAAAAA=&lt;br /&gt;&#10;" strokecolor="white" style="position:absolute; margin-left:478px; margin-top:-6px; width:123pt; height:19.5pt; z-index:251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox></textbox></shape>REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></h4> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RULING URGENT APPLICATION </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                            </b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">CASE NO.: HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2022/00349</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HERMI STRAUSS                                                                     APPLICANT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 450.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HERMIAS CORNELIUS STRAUSS                                             1<sup>st</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MARIA MAGDALENA STRAUSS                                               2<sup>nd</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">LESTER VAN ROOYEN                                                             3<sup>rd</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ANDY HOLLAND                                                                      4<sup>th</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N.O.                                        5<sup>th</sup> RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ADVANCE WEALTH MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD                         6<sup>th </sup>RESPONDENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-127.6pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Neutral citation</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%">:            </span></span></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Strauss v Strauss </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2022/00349) [2022] NAHCMD 500 (23 September 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        RAKOW J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:          2 September 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:    23 September 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Flynote</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:       </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Applications – Urgency – Requirements prescribed by rule 73(4) of the Rules of Court restated – Applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course – Applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making – Applicant failed to put forward reasons rendering the matter urgent and why he</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> would not receive substantial redress in due course</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> – </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Application struck for lack of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Summary</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:    </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicant is the appointed executor in the deceased estate of the late Mr and Mrs Strauss. The first respondent is the biological son of the deceased couple and the third respondent is his life partner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr and Mrs Strauss passed away on 1 and 2 July 2021, respectively. In November 2021, the first and third respondents took occupation of one of the deceaseds farm, Farm Steinfeld situated in Keetmanshoop. It was the applicant’s case that he had not given the respondents permission to reside on Farm Steinfeld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicant launched an application on an urgent basis on 1 August 2021, seeking to interdict the first respondent from interfering in the management and control of the assets of the deceaseds situated on Farm Steinfeld and seeking to evict the respondents from the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the first hurdle that any applicant in an urgent application must cross, is to satisfy the court that the matter is indeed urgent and meets the requirements in rule 73.</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application for urgent relief the applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course.  Coupled with this, the applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, no reasons were put forward by the applicant as to why the first and third respondents should be evicted on an urgent basis or why the applicant would not receive substantial redress in due course.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application was accordingly struck for lack of urgency. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ORDER</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <ol><li style="margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application is struck for lack of urgency.  The issue of costs to stand over until the finalization of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p> </p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">URGENT APPLICATION JUDGMENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"> <hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RAKOW J:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Introduction</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]      The applicant in these proceedings, Mr Hermie Strauss is the Executor appointed by the fifth respondent in the estate of the late Johannes Mattheus Strauss and Martina Daffina Strauss (nee Louw). He is the brother of the deceased Mr Strauss.  The first respondent is Hermias Cornelius Strauss, the son of the deceased Strauss couple and the nephew of the applicant.  The second respondent is Maria Magdalena Strauss, the ex-wife of the first respondent.  She is not opposing the application.  The third respondent is Lester van Rooyen, the life partner of the first respondent.  The fourth respondent is Andy Hollard, a family friend of the first respondent.  The first, third and fourth respondents are opposing this application.  The fifth respondent is the Master of the High Court of Namibia and the six respondent is the agent duly authorized by the applicant to deal with the estates of the deceased persons. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Background </span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]      The first respondent is the sole biological child of the late Mr and Mrs Strauss who passed away on 1 July 2021 and 2 July 2021, respectively. He stated that he grew up on the Farm Steinfeld and resided there during his childhood. He further farmed together with his father, and helped pay for the farm during the period 1992 -1997, whereafter he moved to Cape Town.  He further indicated that he regularly visited with his parents and during 2021 before his parents passed away, he was planning to return to Farm Steinfeld in January 2022 permanetly, to assist them on the farm and in the workshop.  His parents passed away as set out above and in the Wills dated 15 April 2018, both Mr and Mrs Strauss named each other as the beneficiaries of their respective estates and if they should die within 30 days from each other, they named the first and second respondents as their heirs.  These wills also appoint the applicant as executor.  These wills were accepted by the Master of the High Court but challenged by the first respondent in that he alleges that they were not signed in the presence of the witnesses and he further attached statements of those witnesses to his answering affidavit.  This matter is still pending in this court under case HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]      The first respondent received oral permission from the applicant to move onto and reside on farm Hoas, also a farm belonging to his deceased parents, during August 2021. The house on this farm did not have all the comforts of the house on farm Steinfeld as there was no telecommunication connection, the roads on the farm were badly maintained and it had poor sanitation facilities. The house on the farm Steinfeld on the other hand, stood unoccupied since his parents’ passing and was equipped with solar power, functioning telecommunication and sanitation facilities.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]      There was also some property, to wit a Landrover and a trailer, of the first respondent on farm Steinfeld which he requested back from the applicant in a WhatsApp message on 16 September 2021.  This request was refused by the applicant.  After he then told the applicant that he will remove his vehicle from farm Steinfeld, he was informed to leave farm Hoas in an email dated 20 September 2021.  He had nowhere to go and also felt that the applicant had no valid reason to order him from farm Hoas. The first respondent then proceeds and sets out in detail incidents at farm Steinfeld which gave him grounds for concern about the management of the estate of the deceased.  He, for example, followed up on a number of oryx which were hunted on the farm and reported the illegal hunting and slaughtering of 44 oryx at Keetmanshoop by the farm manager, Mr Kotze, who was appointed by the applicant to manage the farm.  He also complained that Mr Kotze, on instruction of the applicant, sold certain Landrover parts from the garage that were being operated at Farm Steinfeld, to third parties for far below the market price for these parts.  This was during November 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]      He and the third respondent, his life partner, moved to Farm Steinfeld during November 2021, to stop further deterioration of the farm and everything on it. His intention was to start caring for the items that form part of the estate and which was just standing around without daily care.  The first and third respondents left Farm Steinfeld together on 23 May 2022 for medical care and surgery.  This was only a temporary arrangement and the first and third respondents returned to Farm Steinfeld on 17 July 2022. The fourth respondent, who was a family friend, accompanied the other two respondents to the farm on request of the first respondent to assist with mechanical work to the generator on the farm which was overheating.  The fourth respondent left the farm after assisting with the generator on 28 July 2022 and returned to South Africa. This was before this application was served.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]      It further seems that the applicant was informed by Mr Kotze that upon their return from South Africa, the first, third and fourth respondents brought with them three Landrovers and numerous Landrover parts which seems to be destined for mechanical or maintenance repairs at the garage situated at Farm Steinfeld. Two of the Landrovers had since left the farm with one remaining.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]      In a letter dated 29 June 2022 from the legal representative of the first respondent, the first respondent sought to be allowed 50 percent vegetation for 1 sheep on 5 hectares or 1 cow on 35 hectares from 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022.  He further asked to be allowed 50 percent workspace in the garage to carry on with the business and that he be allowed to manage the livestock on the farm.  On 12 July 2022, the sixth respondent informed the legal representative of the first respondent that the request was denied.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]      On 22 July 2022, the applicant gave instructions to his legal practitioners of record to demand that the first respondent be requested to vacate the farm Steinfeld by no later than 27 July 2022.  Despite this, he and the third and fourth respondents remained on the farm.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The content of the various affidavits</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]      The applicant indicated that he never gave the third and fourth respondents permission to reside on the Farm Steinfeld, neither did he give the fourth respondent permission to use the garage, known as Steinfeld Garage and Tools.  He further alleged that the first respondent took possession of the keys of the workshop and remains in control of the workshop.  The first and fourth respondents conduct business at the workshop and this is without the consent of the applicant.  This was for the two weeks preceding the application.  Another concern of the applicant was that the farm manager, Mr Kotze, had no control over the business conducted at the workshop on the farm and that Mr Kotze was authorized to manage the affairs of the farm Steinfeld.  Also that Mr Kotze gave the keys to the garage to the first respondent out of fear and that he has no control over the equipment and products utilized by the first respondent over the past two weeks preceding the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]    The first respondent denies having the only key to the garage and indicates that Mr Kotze indeed has another key.  He further stated that during the two weeks preceding this application, he arrived many times at the workshop after Mr Kotze has already unlocked it.  He never intervened with Mr Kotze’s duties and Mr Kotze could carry on with his duties in the workshop and on the farm as always.  He further stated that where he used the workshop in the garage it was to do maintenance and upkeep on the farm as well as the vehicles of the estate. He further did conversions on Landrovers for farmers and mostly did it out of the back of his own vehicle with his own tools.  He would use tools from time to time from the workshop but it would be returned at the end of the day.  If he used parts from the garage, he would ask Mr Kotze to record it.  The work he has been doing was kept separate from the work Mr Kotze does and to generate an income for the first respondent.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]    The first respondent maintained that he, as an heir is entitled to maintain the farm as well as reside and maintain the family home while the administration of the estates are being finalized. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]    The applicant seeks an order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">1.    Condoning applicant’s non-compliance with the Rules of this Court (“the Rules”) insofar as it relates to the forms and service of the application in terms of Rule 73(3) of the Rules and directing that this matter be heard as one of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That an interim interdict be granted in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> That the first respondent with immediate effect be interdicted from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the management and control of any of the items constituting assets in the estates of the late Johannes Mattheus Strauss and late Martina Daffina Strauss situated on Farm 117, Steinfeld, Keetmanshoop, Republic of Namibia pending the final determination of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862; and   </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the first, third and fourth respondents be ordered to vacate Farm 117, Steinfeld, Keetmanshoop, Republic of Namibia, together with all their goods and belongings, within 7 days from date of this order, pending the final determination of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the costs of this application be borne, jointly and severally, by such respondents who may elect to oppose this application, which costs shall include the costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.55pt"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Further and/or alternative relief as the facts may justify.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The arguments</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]    On behalf of the applicant it was argued that the applicant has a duty to both the heirs to protect the assets of the estate.  The first respondent as heir, only acquires an enforceable right once the applicant has drawn up a liquidation and distribution account and thereafter compliance with section 35 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.  It was also argued that the first respondent consented to the order prayed for under 2.1 above.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]    Regarding the challenge to urgency by the first and third respondents, it was argued that the possible situation rendering this application urgent occurred on 17 July 2022, when the first and third respondents together with the fourth respondent returned to Farm Steinfeld. On 22 July 2022, the applicant through his legal practitioners, informed the first respondent that he and the other respondents should leave the farm by 27 July 2022. Shortly after that, on 1 August 2022, the application was issued.  It was further true that the applicant afforded the respondents ample time to file their opposing papers.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]    In the answering affidavit of the first respondent much is made of the manner in which the applicant conducts the affairs of the Estate Late Strauss but no counter application to remove the applicant as executor was brought and those allegations should be ignored as they are irrelevant to the current proceedings. It was further argued that if the applicant satisfies the requirements of law for eviction relief then that part of the order must be granted. It was further argued that the third respondent does not begin to assert a right to remain on the estate late property against the will of the executor. The fourth respondent apparently left the country before being served with the application and is no longer on the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    On behalf of the respondents it was argued that the applicant basically seeks interim relief to interdict the first respondent from interfering with the management and control of the estate assets and the eviction of the first, second and fourth respondents from the farm Steinfeld. The issues are, therefore, whether the first and third respondents could exercise occupation on Farm Steinfeld and whether the first respondent is interfering with the management of the said farm.  The associated issue is therefore whether a case has been made out for urgent relief and whether the requirements of interim relief was met. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    It was argued that the first and third respondents already moved onto farm Steinfeld in November 2021. They resided there until April 2022, whereafter they returned again in July 2022. It therefore follows that, the first respondent has been residing on Farm Steinfeld for some time without the applicant raising any action.  The reason seemingly, why the applicant now raised the matter as one of urgency seems to be that the first respondent was using all the facilities and spare parts belonging to the estate.  This allegation, however, arises from speculation and uncertainty and is opposed by the first respondent’s factually setting out of what he indeed has done since his return to the farm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    The fourth respondent in his papers further claims that he no longer occupies the farm and that there is no justifying the relief sought against him.  This relief should therefore be dismissed from the onset.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Urgency</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]     The first hurdle that any applicant in an urgent application must cross, is to satisfy the court that the matter is indeed urgent and meets the requirements in rule 73. The applicant in his papers, which was then also argued in court, insisted that he met the requirements for urgency.  In an application for urgent relief the applicant must set out the circumstances demonstrating the urgency and provide satisfactory reasons why he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course.  Coupled with this, the applicant must also demonstrate that the urgency was not of his own making.</span></span></span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[20]    The parties address the matter of urgency in their arguments and heads of argument.  Rule 73(4) sets out the requirements for an application to be dealt with on an urgent basis.  The applicant ‘in an affidavit filed in support of an application under subrule (1), the applicant must set out explicitly – </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">'(a)          the circumstances which he or she avers render the matter urgent; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(b)        the reasons why he or she claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]    The understanding is that both these averments must be contained in the affidavit of the applicant before a matter can be considered on an urgent basis.  The logical sequence will be that as soon as a case is made out for urgent relief, rule 73(3) comes into play, and the court may then dispense with the forms and service provided in these rules and dispose of the application in such manner and in accordance with such procedure as the court considers fair and appropriate.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    The plaintiff should not only pay lip service to these requirements but it should be substantively shown that they were met.  In essence, the applicant should show to the court why they should be allowed to ‘jump the que’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The requirements of Rule 73(4)</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[23]    In </span></span></span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Nghiimbwasha and Another v Minister of Justice and Others,</span></span></span></i><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> the court dealt with the interpretation of the word ‘must’ contained in rule 73(4) as well as the responsibility of an applicant in a matter alleged to be urgent.  Masuku J states at para that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">‘[11]     The first thing to note is that the said rule is couched in peremptory language regarding what a litigant who wishes to approach the court on urgency must do. That the language employed is mandatory in nature can be deduced from the use of the word “must” in rule 73 (4). In this regard, two requirements are placed on an applicant regarding necessary allegations to be made in the affidavit filed in support of the urgent application. It stands to reason that failure to comply with the mandatory nature of the burden cast may result in the application for the matter to be enrolled on urgency being refused.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[12] The first allegation the applicant must “explicitly” make in the affidavit relates to the circumstances alleged to render the matter urgent. Second, the applicant must “explicitly” state the reasons why it is alleged he or she cannot be granted substantial relief at a hearing in due course. The use of the word “explicitly”, it is my view is not idle nor an inconsequential addition to the text. It has certainly not been included for decorative purposes. It serves to set out and underscore the level of disclosure that must be made by an applicant in such cases.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[13] In the English dictionary, the word “explicit” connotes something “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” This therefore means that a deponent to an affidavit in which urgency is claimed or alleged, must state the reasons alleged for the urgency “clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt”. This, to my mind, denotes a very high, honest and comprehensive standard of disclosure, which in a sense results in the deponent taking the court fully in his or her confidence; neither hiding nor hoarding any relevant and necessary information relevant to the issue of urgency.’</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    The qualification of rule 73(4) by adding ‘explicitly’ to the understanding of the case that must be set out in the affidavits supporting the rule 73 application has been supported by our courts in a number of occasions (see <i>Fuller v Shigwele<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> and <i>Bank Windhoek Ltd v Mofuka and another<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>).  Parties are not to </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">underestimate the level of disclosure that must be made by an applicant. The court should be informed frankly and taken into the confidence of the applicant.  Applicants seeking an indulgence from court to hear a matter on an urgent basis should ‘clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt’, set out their case in the affidavits before court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    The second leg of rule 73(4) that needs to be satisfied for a matter to be considered as urgent is that the applicant is to provide under rule 73(4)</span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(b)</span></i> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">‘the reasons why he or she claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.’</span></span></span>  <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants insisted that there is no other remedy available for them, other than bringing an urgent application</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    The argument by the first respondent is that the applicant already chose the process to obtain substantial redress when they filed an appeal application. The fact that they were instructed to bring a condonation application does not negate the ‘afforded substantial redress’ available to the applicant through the appeal process to the third respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Self-created urgency</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    In <i>Bergmann v Commercial Bank of Namibia Ltd and Another,</i><a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Maritz J (as he then was) made the following observations:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">'The Court's power to dispense with the forms and service provided for in the Rules of Court in urgent applications is a discretionary one. That much is clear from the use of the word "may" in Rule 6(12). One of the circumstances under which a court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, may decline to condone  non-compliance with the prescribed forms and service, notwithstanding the apparent urgency of the application, is when the applicant, who is seeking the indulgence, has created the urgency either mala fides or through his or her culpable remissness or inaction. Examples thereof are to be found in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Another v Anthony Black Films (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3)  I  SA 582 (W) and <i>Schweizer Reneke Vleismaatskappy (Edms) Bpk v Die Minister van Landbou en Andere</i> 1971 (1) PH F11 (T).'</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    In <i>Twentieth Century Fox Films Corporation supra; </i>and<i> Schweizer-Renecke Vleis Maatskappy (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Landbou en Andere</i>,<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the court held the view that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                 ‘. . . </span></span></span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">when the applicant, who is seeking the indulgence, has created the emergency, either <i>mala fides</i> or through her culpable  remissness or inaction, he cannot succeed on the basis of urgency.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Substantial redress at a hearing in due course</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]      The second requirement that an applicant in an urgent application must meet, is to show to the satisfaction of the court of the reasons why he or she claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.  This is a substantive requirement and must be specifically addressed in the papers before court.  In</span></span></span> <i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Maritima Consulting Services CC</span></span></span></i><a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Parker J said the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">‘. . .the rule entails two requirements: first, the circumstances relating to urgency which must be explicitly set out, and second, the reasons why an applicant claims he or she could not be afforded substantial redress in due course. It is well settled that for an applicant to succeed in persuading the court to grant the indulgence sought that the matter be heard on urgent basis the applicant must satisfy both requirements.‘</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Discussion</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]      The applicant did in fact attempt to put facts before court to show what exactly renders the application urgent.  The problem for the court, however, comes with the facts provided to show that substantial redress cannot be obtained in due course.  The confirmatory affidavit of Mr Kotze only refers to the use of the workshop at the garage by the fourth respondent, although the first respondent admitted that he used some of the tools of the garage but that it was to assist with the upkeep of the farm infrastructure and vehicles.  He further indicated that if he took parts from the garage, he instructed Mr Kotze to make a note of it.  The fourth respondent is further no longer at the farm and therefore there is no fear that he will continue working in the workshop of the garage.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    The other complaint of Mr Kotze is that the first respondent took the keys of the garage.  Although this is admitted by the first respondent, it seems that Mr Kotze has another set of keys, so the fact that the first respondent has the keys of the garage seems not to have any impact on the work Mr. Kotze needs to perform.  There is no other indications as to where the first and third respondents interfere with the operations of the farm or caused any damage to the value of the estate.  The court presumes that the value of the products and parts used by the first respondent and recorded by Mr Kotze can be determined and eventually be deducted from his share of the Late Estate Strauss, in the event that his application to this court is not successful.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    It further seems that the first respondent gave an undertaking not to interfere with the management and control of any of the items constituting assets in the estates of the late Johannes Mattheus Strauss and late Martina Daffina Strauss and as such has been conducting his business from outside the garage and from the back of his vehicle.  No complaint seems to be forthcoming that Mr Kotze cannot perform his duties as a farm manager, nor is he prevented from performing his duties as mechanic and manager of the garage.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    The only complaint that really remains, is that the first third respondent find themselves on the Farm Steinfeld without permission and as such should be evicted.  There is no reason put forward why this should happen on an urgent basis, neither why the applicant will not receive substantial redress in due course.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    In light of the above, I find that the applicant did not provide sufficient cause for the court to find that the applicant meets the requirements set out for rendering the application urgent.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    The parties agreed that the best proposal regarding a cost order will be for the costs to be reserved, pending the finalization of HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862 as the costs incurred by the executor is on behalf of the estate and will have to be paid by the estate.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The order: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application is struck for lack of urgency.  The issue of costs to stand over until the finalization of </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2022/01862.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">----------------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">E Rakow</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">APPEARANCES:</span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPLICANT:                               J Diedricks  (with him B Viljoen)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                                                  Instructed by Viljoen &amp; Associates, Windhoek</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">FIRST, THIRD &amp; FOURTH</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RESPONDENTS:                        J Marais (SC) (with him Van Vuuren)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                                                  Instructed by Fisher, Quarmby &amp; Pfeifer, Windhoek</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> <i>Nghiimbwasha and Another v Minister of Justice and Others</i> </span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2015] NAHCMD 67 (A 38/2015; 20 March 2015).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Fuller v Shigwele</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> (A 336/2014) [2015] NAHCMD 15 (5 February 2015).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> Bank Windhoek Ltd v Mofuka and another </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">2018 (2) NR 503 (SC).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> <i>Bergmann v Commercial Bank of Namibia Ltd and Another </i></span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">2001 NR 48 (HC).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Schweizer-Renecke Vleis Maatskappy (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Landbou en Andere</span></i><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> 1971 (1) PH F11 (T).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Maritima Consulting Services CC (</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">A 295/2014) [2014] NAHCMD 350 (20 November 2014)</span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:56:47 +0000 Mariana 26453 at http://namiblii.org Prosecutor-General v Gustavo & Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA 429 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 497 (22 September 2022); http://namiblii.org/na/judgment/high-court-main-division/2022/497 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Prosecutor-General v Gustavo &amp; Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA 429 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 497 (22 September 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mariana</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 10/03/2022 - 19:54</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-msword file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.namiblii.org/files/judgments/nahcmd/2022/497/2022-nahcmd-497.doc" type="application/msword; length=141312">2022-nahcmd-497.doc</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><img alt="NAM1" id="Picture_x0020_3" src="" style="width:88.8pt; height:90pt" /></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RULING</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Practice Directive 61</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <table class="Table" style="margin-left:-40px; border-collapse:collapse; border:none" width="692"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" rowspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:418px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:1px solid black; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="left" style="margin-top:16px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Case Title:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Esja Holdings (Pty) Ltd                                 1<sup>st</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mermaria Seafood Namibia (Pty) Ltd           2<sup>nd</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Saga Seafood (Pty) Ltd                                 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heinaste Investment Namibia (Pty) Ltd         4<sup>th</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Saga Investment (Pty) Ltd                             5<sup>th</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Esja Investment (Pty) Ltd                              6<sup>th</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Prosecutor-General                           1<sup>st</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ricardo Jorge Gustavo                            2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent                                                           1<sup>ST</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Tamson Tangeni Hatuikulipi                     3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent                                                          2<sup>ND</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">James Nependa Hatuikulipi                      4<sup>th</sup> Respondent                                                          3<sup>RD</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Sackeus Edwards Twelityaamena </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Shanghala                                                 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent                                                          4<sup>TH</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Bernard Martin Esau                                 6<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Pius Natangwe Mwatelulo                        7<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Namgomar Pesca (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd      8<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Erongo Clearing and Forwarding CC        9<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JTH Trading CC                                      10<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Greyguard Investment CC                      11<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Otuafika Logistics CC                             12<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Otuafika Investment CC                          13<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Fitty Entertainment CC                           14<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Trustees of Cambarada Trust                 15<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Olea Investment Number Nine CC         16<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Trustees of Omholo Trust                       17<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ndapandula Johanna Hatuikulipi            18<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Swamma Esau                                        19<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:-43px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Al Investment No Five CC                      20<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Oholo Trading CC                                   21<sup>st</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Gwaaniilonga Investment (Pty) Ltd        22<sup>nd</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:1px solid black; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:108px; text-indent:-77.95pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Case No:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:108px; text-indent:-77.95pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-MOT-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:108px; text-indent:-77.95pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">POCA-2020/00429</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Division of Court:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Main Division</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard on:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">31 August 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:418px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard before:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Honourable Justice Sibeya, Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered:      </span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">22 September 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-108.0pt; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 468.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Neutral citation</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">: <i>Prosecutor-General v Gustavo &amp; Others </i>(HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA-2020/00429) [2022] NAHCMD 497 (22 September 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-108.0pt; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Order:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a name="_Hlk64319127" id="_Hlk64319127"></a></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants’ application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order and ruling of this court </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">for the dismissal of the application to refer the matter to oral evidence and for the applicants to be granted leave to cross-examine the Prosecutor-General, is dismissed </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants’ are ordered to pay the Prosecutor-General’s costs for opposing the application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, subject to rule 32 (11). </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The matter is postponed to 30 and 31 January 2023 at 09:00 for the hearing of the application for a restraint order and the </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">rule <i>nisi </i>return date hearing.</span></span></span> </span></span></span></li> </ol></td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:50px; text-indent:-37.15pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Reasons for order:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SIBEYA, J:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Introduction</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">This court is seized with an application for leave to appeal where the first to the sixth applicants seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against part of the ruling and order handed down on 30 March 2022 with reasons delivered on 04 April 2022. The order and ruling sought to be appealed against is the dismissal with costs of the application for referral to oral evidence in terms of Rule 67, and for leave to be granted to the first to sixth respondents to cross-examine the Prosecutor-General. The application for leave to appeal is opposed. The parties herein are referred to as cited in the main ruling sought to be appealed against.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">For the purpose of this ruling, the first to the sixth applicants shall be referred to as the applicants, while the Prosecutor-General shall be referred to as the PG. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the main application, the applicants sought leave to refer to oral evidence and cross-examine the PG and a witness, Mr Johannes Stefansson on issues set out in the main ruling. The applicants further sought leave to argue <i>in limine</i> that the application against them be dismissed. </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the ruling, the applicants’ application was dismissed with costs. In the present matter, the applicants seek leave to appeal the part of the ruling that dismissed the application to refer to oral evidence in order to cross-examine the PG.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants set out the relief sought in this application for leave to appeal against the ruling where the following relief was dismissed: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">        ‘1. Leave is hereby granted that the application is referred to oral evidence in terms of Rule 67, and for that purpose the 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendant is hereby granted leave to cross examine Martha Olivia Imalwa in her capacity as the Prosecutor-General … in terms of Rule 67 and the provisions of the POCA Act, on the following issues:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">whether the Prosecutor General has shown that 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants “is to be charged” in criminal proceedings already instituted by the Prosecutor General against the 1<sup>st</sup> to 16<sup>th</sup> defendants and the 1<sup>st</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> respondents in case numbers CC-6-2021 and CC-7-2021, and that 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants shall be so charged together with the 1<sup>st</sup> to 16 defendants and the 1<sup>st</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> respondents in the same criminal trial.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:27px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">whether the Prosecutor General has shown that the 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants “is to be charged” in the criminal proceedings referred to in paragraph 1.1 above, in circumstances where the Prosecutor General will so charge the 17<sup>th</sup> - 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants timeously – or at all – by extraditing the 17<sup>th</sup> - 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants’ foreign directors referred to in the Prosecutor General’s founding affidavit, Ingvar Juliusson, Egill Arnason and Adelsteinn Helgason, timeously or at all.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">whether the Prosecutor General has shown that Mr Johannes Stefansson will be a witness at the criminal trial as referred to in paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 above.’</span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants do not seek leave to appeal the ruling on the dismissal of the application to refer to oral evidence and leave to cross-examine Mr Johannes Stefansson. The applicants further do not seek leave to appeal against the dismissal of their application to argue <i>in limine</i> that the application brought against them be dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants seek leave to appeal on the following summarized grounds:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court did not exercise a discretion as required in terms of rule 67 of the Rules of Court, and if it did such discretion was vitiated by irregularities;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The court dealt with the application as if a rule <i>nisi </i>was already granted against the applicants whereas no such rule <i>nisi</i> was granted, that the alleged factual disputes can be resolved on the papers and that the relief will be sought by the PG at the hearing is interim in nature which secures the interim status quo and the applicants will have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the trial;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court erred when it applied the interim relief test when it was alleged that the PG was not <i>bona fide</i> when she stated that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicants are to be charged in the upcoming trial together with other respondents while she is still to locate the whereabouts of the foreign directors and, therefore, the court erred when it found the explanation by the PG to be reasonable;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the PG will never be a witness at the trial and therefore the applicants will not have an opportunity to test the facts relied upon by the PG or her <i>bona fides</i> for submitting that the applicants are to be charged and therefore impacting the fairness of the disputed issues;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court erred when it held against the applicants that they do not disclose their whereabouts and intend to oppose their extradition proceedings;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court erred in finding that the allegation by the applicants that Mr Stefansson will not testify is speculative while this is indicative of an existence of a dispute of fact;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="7" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The court erred by adopting the ‘on the face of it’ test when the PG did not disclose all the relevant facts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Heathcote appeared for the applicants while Mr Trengove appeared for the PG.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Appealability</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="8"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The PG raised a point of law that the ruling of this court which dismissed the application for leave to refer to oral evidence against which leave to appeal is sought is not appealable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="9"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr. Trengove, ably reminded the court of the following requirements to be considered in determining whether or not a judgment or order is appealable:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That it must be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That it must be definitive of the rights of parties; </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That it must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="10"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That an application for leave to appeal under s 18 of the High Court Act 16 of 1999 involves a two stage inquiry, namely:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether the ruling against which the applicants seek leave to appeal, is appealable at all;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:81px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">If it is appealable, and it is an interlocutory judgment or order, then leave to appeal must first be obtained.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="11"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Trengove strenuously submitted that the ruling of the court to dismiss the application for a referral to oral evidence, does not meet any of the aforesaid requirements for a judgment or order to be appealable. He further submitted that the said ruling is not final in effect and is subject to reconsideration at any time if circumstances change. It is not definitive of the rights of the parties as the proceedings are at a stage moving towards an application for a restraint order which order, if granted, will `be of temporal effect pending the final determination of the parties’ rights and obligations at the end of the trial. The ruling of the court further does not dispose of any part of the relief sought in the main proceedings for a confiscation order, let alone any of the relief sought in this restraint application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="12"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Trengove drove the non-appealability point home when he submitted that the concerned ruling is a ruling not a judgment or an order. It is a ruling which leaves room for a reconsideration when there is a change in circumstances. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="13"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Heathcote, countered with submissions of his own. He submitted with mighty, that it is trite that an order where the court refers certain issues for oral evidence is not appealable as opposed to the refusal to refer for oral evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="14"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Heathcote further submitted that the fact that Article 12(1)<i>(d) </i>which guarantees a right to cross-examination in criminal cases also finds application in civil motion proceedings. The right to cross-examination must be available in order to secure a fair trial and this right may not be withheld by discretion, so he submitted. He relied on the following passage from a judgment of the Supreme Court of <i>S v Scholtz,<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i>where it was stated that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">            ‘the right to a fair trial conferred by that provision is broader than the list of specific rights set out … it embraces a concept of substantial fairness which is not to be equated with what - might have passed muster in criminal courts before the constitution came into force,  </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="15"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It was submitted further by Mr Heathcote, that unless the state secures the foreign directors’ presence at the criminal trial, no confiscation order may ever be made, hence the need to interrogate the PG, if there is evidence that the applicants will be charged through their foreign directors while she has to date not established their whereabouts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="16"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In reference to the principles set out in order to determine if a judgment or order is appealable or not, Mr Heathcote submitted that our courts have adopted the requirements set out in <i>Zweni</i> <i>(supra)</i>.  He submitted that our courts have, however, went further to state that the principles in <i>Zweni</i> are not cast in stone but useful guidelines. Mr Heathcote concluded his submissions with reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court in <i>Herman Konrad v Shanika Ndapanda</i><a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> for the contention that a referral to oral evidence is not an ordinary interlocutory application but one which aims to facilitate the parties’ substantive right to a fair trial and therefore the refusal of such right is appealable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="17"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The starting point to determine the appealability or not of the ruling of this court of the dismissal of the application for referral to oral evidence is s 18(3) of the High Court Act,<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> which provides that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">             ‘No judgment or order where the judgment or order sought to be appealed from is an interlocutory order or an order as to costs only left by law to the discretion of the court shall be subject to appeal save with the leave of the court which has given the judgment or has made the order, or in the event of such leave to appeal being refused, leave to appeal being granted by the Supreme Court.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="18"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">While considering s 18(3) of the High Court Act, Shivute CJ in <i>Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Ltd (supra)</i><a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> remarked as follows at para 51:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        ‘…</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The spirit of s 18(3) is that before a party can pursue an appeal against judgment or order of the High Court, two requirements must be met. Firstly, the judgment or order must be appealable. Secondly, if the judgment or order is interlocutory, leave to appeal against such judgment or order must first be obtained even if the nature of the order or judgment satisfies the first requirement.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="19"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Supreme Court in <i>Shetu Trading CC v Tender Board of Namibia (supra)</i> restated the following requirements to be satisfied for a judgment or order to be appealable: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It must be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:81px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It must be definitive of the rights of the parties; and </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="20"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In <i>Elifas and Others v Asino and Others,</i><a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a>  the Supreme Court per Damaseb DCJ found that the decision of the High Court to direct a deponent to an affidavit in pending motion proceedings to give oral evidence in terms of rule 67(1)(a) was not an appealable judgment or order. The quoted with approval the following passage from <i>SARFU</i><a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="" id="_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a> to the effect that a referral to oral evidence is just a ruling that is not appealable: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          ‘</span></span></span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is a well-established principle in our law that a referral to evidence constitutes a ruling, not an order, by a Judge. As such, it is open to the court to withdraw that ruling and order that it is unnecessary to hear the oral evidence. We have held that the referral to evidence was clearly wrong and constituted a misdirection by the Judge. The appellants were, therefore, entitled to make an interlocutory application to the Judge seeking a reconsideration of the referral to evidence.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="21"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whilst there is an abundance of authorities providing that rulings of referral to oral evidence are not appealable no clear authority for the proposition advanced by the applicants that a refusal to refer for oral evidence is appealable, brought to the court’s attention, neither could I lay my hands on any on my own. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="22"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I hold that it is beyond question that the ruling for refusal to refer for oral evidence is not final and is open to alteration by this Court should circumstances change. I further hold that the said ruling miles away from being definitive of the rights of the parties. I say so in light of the fact that the current proceedings are at a stage where they are in motion towards a hearing of the restraint application, which in itself interim in nature. The ruling complained of, therefore, is of no moment on the rights of the parties in the main application for a confiscation order or at the very least an application for a restraint order. The ruling, furthermore, does not dispose any portion of the relief sought in the main application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="23"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Supreme Court endorsed the above three requirements to be met in order to determine whether a judgment or order is appealable. Such requirements have been referred to as not been cast in stone but as guidelines. Guidelines, as they may be, I find them to be useful guidelines in the determination of the appealability of a judgment or order, and they are guidelines that I adopt and implement without a measure of doubt.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="24"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I further find that the remarks made by the Supreme Court in <i>Shaanika (supra)</i> are distinguishable from the present matter. The remarks were made at the conclusion of the matter and nowhere does <i>Shanika</i> encourage mid-stream appeal of refusal to refer for oral evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="25"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I find that, in the premises, that a ruling on dismissing an application for referral for oral evidence is not appealable mid-stream for it is wanting on the above-mentioned three requirements or guidelines for appealability.  I could refuse the leave to appeal on this basis but in the event that I am wrong, I proceed to address the merits of the leave sought. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application for leave to appeal</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="26"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach to an application for leave to appeal was set out in <i>Shilongo v Vector Logistics</i><a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> where the remarked as follows: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">         ‘[4] It was observed in <i>S v Nowaseb</i> that –</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“[2] (Thus) an application for leave to appeal should not be granted if it appears to the Judge that there is no reasonable prospect of success. And it has been said that in the exercise of his or her power, the trial Judge (or, as in the present case, the appellate Judge) must disabuse his or her mind of the fact that he or she has not reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.”’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="27"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The test applicable to an application for leave to appeal is not that another court will come to a different conclusion, but rather that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal and this much, the parties were <i>ad idem</i>.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Analysis of the grounds </span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="28"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The parties were in agreement, correctly so, that <i>Plascon Evans</i> should not have been referred to in the ruling on the application for referral for oral evidence because no interim restraint order was granted against the applicants before. A rule <i>nisi</i> was not issued in this matter against the applicants. The parties were, however, still in agreement, and still on the correct side, that the referral to <i>Plascon Evans</i> is of no effect on the present application for leave to appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="29"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It emphasised, as stated in the ruling for the application for referral for oral evidence, that an application for a restraint order is interim in nature. This position is accepted by the applicants who argue that they may endure a long time before the criminal proceedings are finalised. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="30"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is settled law that a dispute of fact will not be fatal to the application to grant a restraint order because all that the applicant must show is a <i>prima facie</i> right even if it is open to some doubt.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="" id="_ftnref9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Only if serious doubt arises will the restraint order not be granted. Given the test applicable at this stage of the proceedings for an interim interdict, the time is not ripe to resolve factual disputes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="31"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The main qualm of the applicants is that the whereabouts of the foreign directors is unknown to the PG, they will not be charged, and she will not be able to extradite them to Namibia to join the pending criminal prosecution. The PG insists that she will extradite the foreign directors, charge the applicants and if she cannot extradite them in time to join the pending criminal prosecution, she will prosecute them separately. I found the explanation of the PG to be reasonable, especially in view of the PG’s response that no formal extradition request was sent to Iceland and further that the foreign directors may be anywhere outside Iceland where Iceland cannot refuse the extradition request.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="32"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants claims that the PG is not <i>bona fide</i> when she stated that the applicants are to be charged. They further complain that they are refused an opportunity to cross-examine the PG as the PG will never be a witness in the criminal trial and this goes against resolving the dispute in a fair manner as envisaged by Article 12 of the Constitution. The PG disputes the assertion that she is not <i>bona fide</i>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="33"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I find that the applicants miss the point. What is material in the pending application for a restraint order brought by the PG is whether she will succeed in convincing the court that the applicants are to be charged or not. At the criminal trial, if the PG fails to extradite the directors of the applicants and thus fails to charge the applicants, there can be no conviction of the applicants and ultimately no confiscation order against the applicants. This may render the applicants’ call to cross-examine the PG unnecessary and at the same cause no injustice to the applicants. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="34"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants laid great store on the court’s finding that what is required is a determination whether it appears on the face of it from the application, that that the person will be charged with an offence and that it appears to the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a confiscation order may be made against such person.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="35"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is apparent from the wording of s 25(2) and 24(1)<i>(b) </i>that the PG is only required to satisfy the Court that it appears on the face of it from the application that a person is to be charged with an offence and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a confiscation order may be made against such person. The hurdle that the PG is required to meet is light as per the wisdom of the legislature. The purpose, of which is to allow, applications for restraint orders not to be bogged down in disputes of fact, but to rather preserve the assets temporary pending the outcome of the criminal trial and related confiscation application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="36"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants further complain that this court erred when it found that the allegation that Mr Johannes Stefansson will not testify constitutes speculation when the PG did not file a replying affidavit from Mr Stefansson where he confirms that he will testify. The PG disputed the said allegations and stated that Mr Stefansson who is listed as a witness will testify. Nothing more turns on this allegation and I reiterate that it amounts to speculation.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Conclusion</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="37"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In view of the findings stated above, I am of the opinion that the applicants have failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal and their application for leave to appeal falls to be dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="38"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is trite in our law that costs follow the event and I have not been persuaded to depart from this principle. The PG has succeeded to oppose the application for leave to appeal and deserves to be awarded costs. I, however, do not find justification to award costs beyond the cap provided for in rule 32 (11) in view of the fact that these are interlocutory proceedings.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="39"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the result, I make the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants’ application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order and ruling of this court </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">for the dismissal of the application to refer the matter to oral evidence and for the applicants’ to be granted leave to cross-examine the Prosecutor-General, is dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants are ordered to pay the Prosecutor-General’s costs for opposing the application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, subject to rule 32 (11). </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The matter is postponed to 30 and 31 January 2023 at 09:00 for the hearing of the application for a restraint order and the </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">rule <i>nisi </i>return date hearing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:28px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judge’s signature:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:28px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Note to the parties:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:71px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Sibeya</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:71px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Not applicable</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:31px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Counsel:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:22px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">1<sup>st</sup> to 6<sup>th</sup> Applicants:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:22px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Prosecutor-General</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:39px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr R Heathcote, SC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">assisted by Mr E Nekwaya</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Joos Agenbach Legal Practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:39px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="margin-left:2px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr W Trengove, SC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:2px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">assisted by Mr S Akweenda</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:2px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Office of the Government Attorney</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:none; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-left:none; width:342px"> </td> <td style="border-bottom:none; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-left:none; width:76px"> </td> <td style="border-bottom:none; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-left:none; width:274px"> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Knowds NO v Josea</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 2010 (2) NR 754 (SC) para 10; <i>Shetu Trading c Chair, Tender Board of Namibia</i> 2012 (1) NR 162 (SC) paras 18-19; <i>Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia</i> 2017 (3) NR 880 (SC) para 51; <i>Elifas v Asino</i> 2020 (4) NR 1030 (SC) paras 13-14; <i>Minister of Finance v Hollard Insurance Company of Namibia Limited</i> 2021 (2) NR 524 (SC) para 70. <i>Zweni v Minister of Law and Order</i> 1993 (1) SA 523 (A).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">S v Scholtz</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 1998 NR 207 (SC) at 218-219.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(Case No. SA 21/2017), delivered on 28 February 2019 at para 16 where it was stated that: ‘</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The exercise of the court’s discretion in Rule 67 should be read with the overriding objective of the court rules to facilitate the resolution of the real issues in dispute justly and speedily, efficiently and cost effectively as far as practicable. By dismissing the case the court <i>a quo</i> left the issue as to ‘putative marriage’ and the proprietary rights of the parties unresolved despite the disputes being alive in the court. In this instance the court <i>a quo </i>failed to resolve the real issues in dispute justly, efficiently and cost effectively as far as practicable.’</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">High Court Act</span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">16 of 1990.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Ltd</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> 2017 (3) NR 880 (SC) para 51.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Elifas and others v Asino and Others</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> 2020 (4) NR 1030 (SC) para 15-17.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="" id="_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">President of the RSA v South African Rugby Football Association</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 2000 (1) SA (CC) para 248.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="" id="_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Shilongo v Vector Logistics</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> (LCA 27/2021) [2014] NALCMD 33 (7 August 2014).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="" id="_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Setlogelo v Setlogelo</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 1914 AD 221; <i>Webster v Mitchell</i> 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W); <i>National Treasury v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance</i> 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC) para 41. </span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-efad939f1e6e39109c6a084356d935bc6e13cba1a05486fec98a2af5a94841ef"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><img alt="NAM1" id="Picture_x0020_3" src="" style="width:88.8pt; height:90pt" /></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">RULING</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Practice Directive 61</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <table class="Table" style="margin-left:-40px; border-collapse:collapse; border:none" width="692"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" rowspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:418px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:1px solid black; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="left" style="margin-top:16px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Case Title:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Esja Holdings (Pty) Ltd                                 1<sup>st</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mermaria Seafood Namibia (Pty) Ltd           2<sup>nd</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Saga Seafood (Pty) Ltd                                 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heinaste Investment Namibia (Pty) Ltd         4<sup>th</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Saga Investment (Pty) Ltd                             5<sup>th</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Esja Investment (Pty) Ltd                              6<sup>th</sup> Applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Prosecutor-General                           1<sup>st</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ricardo Jorge Gustavo                            2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent                                                           1<sup>ST</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Tamson Tangeni Hatuikulipi                     3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent                                                          2<sup>ND</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">James Nependa Hatuikulipi                      4<sup>th</sup> Respondent                                                          3<sup>RD</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Sackeus Edwards Twelityaamena </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Shanghala                                                 5<sup>th</sup> Respondent                                                          4<sup>TH</sup> DEFENDANT</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Bernard Martin Esau                                 6<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Pius Natangwe Mwatelulo                        7<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Namgomar Pesca (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd      8<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Erongo Clearing and Forwarding CC        9<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JTH Trading CC                                      10<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Greyguard Investment CC                      11<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Otuafika Logistics CC                             12<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Otuafika Investment CC                          13<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Fitty Entertainment CC                           14<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Trustees of Cambarada Trust                 15<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Olea Investment Number Nine CC         16<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Trustees of Omholo Trust                       17<sup>th</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ndapandula Johanna Hatuikulipi            18<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Swamma Esau                                        19<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:-43px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Al Investment No Five CC                      20<sup>th</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Oholo Trading CC                                   21<sup>st</sup> Respondent </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Gwaaniilonga Investment (Pty) Ltd        22<sup>nd</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:1px solid black; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:108px; text-indent:-77.95pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Case No:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:108px; text-indent:-77.95pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-MOT-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:108px; text-indent:-77.95pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">POCA-2020/00429</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Division of Court:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Main Division</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard on:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">31 August 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:418px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard before:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Honourable Justice Sibeya, Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:274px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered:      </span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">22 September 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-108.0pt; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 468.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Neutral citation</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">: <i>Prosecutor-General v Gustavo &amp; Others </i>(HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA-2020/00429) [2022] NAHCMD 497 (22 September 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-108.0pt; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:40px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Order:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a name="_Hlk64319127" id="_Hlk64319127"></a></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants’ application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order and ruling of this court </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">for the dismissal of the application to refer the matter to oral evidence and for the applicants to be granted leave to cross-examine the Prosecutor-General, is dismissed </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants’ are ordered to pay the Prosecutor-General’s costs for opposing the application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, subject to rule 32 (11). </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The matter is postponed to 30 and 31 January 2023 at 09:00 for the hearing of the application for a restraint order and the </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">rule <i>nisi </i>return date hearing.</span></span></span> </span></span></span></li> </ol></td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:50px; text-indent:-37.15pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Reasons for order:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SIBEYA, J:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Introduction</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">This court is seized with an application for leave to appeal where the first to the sixth applicants seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against part of the ruling and order handed down on 30 March 2022 with reasons delivered on 04 April 2022. The order and ruling sought to be appealed against is the dismissal with costs of the application for referral to oral evidence in terms of Rule 67, and for leave to be granted to the first to sixth respondents to cross-examine the Prosecutor-General. The application for leave to appeal is opposed. The parties herein are referred to as cited in the main ruling sought to be appealed against.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">For the purpose of this ruling, the first to the sixth applicants shall be referred to as the applicants, while the Prosecutor-General shall be referred to as the PG. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the main application, the applicants sought leave to refer to oral evidence and cross-examine the PG and a witness, Mr Johannes Stefansson on issues set out in the main ruling. The applicants further sought leave to argue <i>in limine</i> that the application against them be dismissed. </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the ruling, the applicants’ application was dismissed with costs. In the present matter, the applicants seek leave to appeal the part of the ruling that dismissed the application to refer to oral evidence in order to cross-examine the PG.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants set out the relief sought in this application for leave to appeal against the ruling where the following relief was dismissed: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">        ‘1. Leave is hereby granted that the application is referred to oral evidence in terms of Rule 67, and for that purpose the 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendant is hereby granted leave to cross examine Martha Olivia Imalwa in her capacity as the Prosecutor-General … in terms of Rule 67 and the provisions of the POCA Act, on the following issues:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">whether the Prosecutor General has shown that 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants “is to be charged” in criminal proceedings already instituted by the Prosecutor General against the 1<sup>st</sup> to 16<sup>th</sup> defendants and the 1<sup>st</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> respondents in case numbers CC-6-2021 and CC-7-2021, and that 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants shall be so charged together with the 1<sup>st</sup> to 16 defendants and the 1<sup>st</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> respondents in the same criminal trial.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:27px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">whether the Prosecutor General has shown that the 17<sup>th</sup> to 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants “is to be charged” in the criminal proceedings referred to in paragraph 1.1 above, in circumstances where the Prosecutor General will so charge the 17<sup>th</sup> - 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants timeously – or at all – by extraditing the 17<sup>th</sup> - 22<sup>nd</sup> defendants’ foreign directors referred to in the Prosecutor General’s founding affidavit, Ingvar Juliusson, Egill Arnason and Adelsteinn Helgason, timeously or at all.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">whether the Prosecutor General has shown that Mr Johannes Stefansson will be a witness at the criminal trial as referred to in paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 above.’</span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants do not seek leave to appeal the ruling on the dismissal of the application to refer to oral evidence and leave to cross-examine Mr Johannes Stefansson. The applicants further do not seek leave to appeal against the dismissal of their application to argue <i>in limine</i> that the application brought against them be dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants seek leave to appeal on the following summarized grounds:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court did not exercise a discretion as required in terms of rule 67 of the Rules of Court, and if it did such discretion was vitiated by irregularities;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The court dealt with the application as if a rule <i>nisi </i>was already granted against the applicants whereas no such rule <i>nisi</i> was granted, that the alleged factual disputes can be resolved on the papers and that the relief will be sought by the PG at the hearing is interim in nature which secures the interim status quo and the applicants will have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the trial;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court erred when it applied the interim relief test when it was alleged that the PG was not <i>bona fide</i> when she stated that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicants are to be charged in the upcoming trial together with other respondents while she is still to locate the whereabouts of the foreign directors and, therefore, the court erred when it found the explanation by the PG to be reasonable;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the PG will never be a witness at the trial and therefore the applicants will not have an opportunity to test the facts relied upon by the PG or her <i>bona fides</i> for submitting that the applicants are to be charged and therefore impacting the fairness of the disputed issues;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court erred when it held against the applicants that they do not disclose their whereabouts and intend to oppose their extradition proceedings;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That the court erred in finding that the allegation by the applicants that Mr Stefansson will not testify is speculative while this is indicative of an existence of a dispute of fact;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="7" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The court erred by adopting the ‘on the face of it’ test when the PG did not disclose all the relevant facts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Heathcote appeared for the applicants while Mr Trengove appeared for the PG.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Appealability</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="8"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The PG raised a point of law that the ruling of this court which dismissed the application for leave to refer to oral evidence against which leave to appeal is sought is not appealable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="9"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr. Trengove, ably reminded the court of the following requirements to be considered in determining whether or not a judgment or order is appealable:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That it must be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That it must be definitive of the rights of parties; </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That it must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="10"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">That an application for leave to appeal under s 18 of the High Court Act 16 of 1999 involves a two stage inquiry, namely:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether the ruling against which the applicants seek leave to appeal, is appealable at all;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:81px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">If it is appealable, and it is an interlocutory judgment or order, then leave to appeal must first be obtained.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="11"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Trengove strenuously submitted that the ruling of the court to dismiss the application for a referral to oral evidence, does not meet any of the aforesaid requirements for a judgment or order to be appealable. He further submitted that the said ruling is not final in effect and is subject to reconsideration at any time if circumstances change. It is not definitive of the rights of the parties as the proceedings are at a stage moving towards an application for a restraint order which order, if granted, will `be of temporal effect pending the final determination of the parties’ rights and obligations at the end of the trial. The ruling of the court further does not dispose of any part of the relief sought in the main proceedings for a confiscation order, let alone any of the relief sought in this restraint application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="12"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Trengove drove the non-appealability point home when he submitted that the concerned ruling is a ruling not a judgment or an order. It is a ruling which leaves room for a reconsideration when there is a change in circumstances. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="13"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Heathcote, countered with submissions of his own. He submitted with mighty, that it is trite that an order where the court refers certain issues for oral evidence is not appealable as opposed to the refusal to refer for oral evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="14"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr Heathcote further submitted that the fact that Article 12(1)<i>(d) </i>which guarantees a right to cross-examination in criminal cases also finds application in civil motion proceedings. The right to cross-examination must be available in order to secure a fair trial and this right may not be withheld by discretion, so he submitted. He relied on the following passage from a judgment of the Supreme Court of <i>S v Scholtz,<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i>where it was stated that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">            ‘the right to a fair trial conferred by that provision is broader than the list of specific rights set out … it embraces a concept of substantial fairness which is not to be equated with what - might have passed muster in criminal courts before the constitution came into force,  </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="15"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It was submitted further by Mr Heathcote, that unless the state secures the foreign directors’ presence at the criminal trial, no confiscation order may ever be made, hence the need to interrogate the PG, if there is evidence that the applicants will be charged through their foreign directors while she has to date not established their whereabouts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="16"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In reference to the principles set out in order to determine if a judgment or order is appealable or not, Mr Heathcote submitted that our courts have adopted the requirements set out in <i>Zweni</i> <i>(supra)</i>.  He submitted that our courts have, however, went further to state that the principles in <i>Zweni</i> are not cast in stone but useful guidelines. Mr Heathcote concluded his submissions with reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court in <i>Herman Konrad v Shanika Ndapanda</i><a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> for the contention that a referral to oral evidence is not an ordinary interlocutory application but one which aims to facilitate the parties’ substantive right to a fair trial and therefore the refusal of such right is appealable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="17"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The starting point to determine the appealability or not of the ruling of this court of the dismissal of the application for referral to oral evidence is s 18(3) of the High Court Act,<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> which provides that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">             ‘No judgment or order where the judgment or order sought to be appealed from is an interlocutory order or an order as to costs only left by law to the discretion of the court shall be subject to appeal save with the leave of the court which has given the judgment or has made the order, or in the event of such leave to appeal being refused, leave to appeal being granted by the Supreme Court.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="18"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">While considering s 18(3) of the High Court Act, Shivute CJ in <i>Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Ltd (supra)</i><a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> remarked as follows at para 51:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        ‘…</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The spirit of s 18(3) is that before a party can pursue an appeal against judgment or order of the High Court, two requirements must be met. Firstly, the judgment or order must be appealable. Secondly, if the judgment or order is interlocutory, leave to appeal against such judgment or order must first be obtained even if the nature of the order or judgment satisfies the first requirement.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="19"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Supreme Court in <i>Shetu Trading CC v Tender Board of Namibia (supra)</i> restated the following requirements to be satisfied for a judgment or order to be appealable: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It must be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:81px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It must be definitive of the rights of the parties; and </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="20"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In <i>Elifas and Others v Asino and Others,</i><a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a>  the Supreme Court per Damaseb DCJ found that the decision of the High Court to direct a deponent to an affidavit in pending motion proceedings to give oral evidence in terms of rule 67(1)(a) was not an appealable judgment or order. The quoted with approval the following passage from <i>SARFU</i><a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="" id="_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a> to the effect that a referral to oral evidence is just a ruling that is not appealable: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          ‘</span></span></span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is a well-established principle in our law that a referral to evidence constitutes a ruling, not an order, by a Judge. As such, it is open to the court to withdraw that ruling and order that it is unnecessary to hear the oral evidence. We have held that the referral to evidence was clearly wrong and constituted a misdirection by the Judge. The appellants were, therefore, entitled to make an interlocutory application to the Judge seeking a reconsideration of the referral to evidence.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="21"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whilst there is an abundance of authorities providing that rulings of referral to oral evidence are not appealable no clear authority for the proposition advanced by the applicants that a refusal to refer for oral evidence is appealable, brought to the court’s attention, neither could I lay my hands on any on my own. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="22"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I hold that it is beyond question that the ruling for refusal to refer for oral evidence is not final and is open to alteration by this Court should circumstances change. I further hold that the said ruling miles away from being definitive of the rights of the parties. I say so in light of the fact that the current proceedings are at a stage where they are in motion towards a hearing of the restraint application, which in itself interim in nature. The ruling complained of, therefore, is of no moment on the rights of the parties in the main application for a confiscation order or at the very least an application for a restraint order. The ruling, furthermore, does not dispose any portion of the relief sought in the main application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="23"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Supreme Court endorsed the above three requirements to be met in order to determine whether a judgment or order is appealable. Such requirements have been referred to as not been cast in stone but as guidelines. Guidelines, as they may be, I find them to be useful guidelines in the determination of the appealability of a judgment or order, and they are guidelines that I adopt and implement without a measure of doubt.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="24"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I further find that the remarks made by the Supreme Court in <i>Shaanika (supra)</i> are distinguishable from the present matter. The remarks were made at the conclusion of the matter and nowhere does <i>Shanika</i> encourage mid-stream appeal of refusal to refer for oral evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="25"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I find that, in the premises, that a ruling on dismissing an application for referral for oral evidence is not appealable mid-stream for it is wanting on the above-mentioned three requirements or guidelines for appealability.  I could refuse the leave to appeal on this basis but in the event that I am wrong, I proceed to address the merits of the leave sought. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The application for leave to appeal</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="26"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach to an application for leave to appeal was set out in <i>Shilongo v Vector Logistics</i><a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> where the remarked as follows: </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">         ‘[4] It was observed in <i>S v Nowaseb</i> that –</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“[2] (Thus) an application for leave to appeal should not be granted if it appears to the Judge that there is no reasonable prospect of success. And it has been said that in the exercise of his or her power, the trial Judge (or, as in the present case, the appellate Judge) must disabuse his or her mind of the fact that he or she has not reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.”’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="27"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The test applicable to an application for leave to appeal is not that another court will come to a different conclusion, but rather that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal and this much, the parties were <i>ad idem</i>.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Analysis of the grounds </span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="28"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The parties were in agreement, correctly so, that <i>Plascon Evans</i> should not have been referred to in the ruling on the application for referral for oral evidence because no interim restraint order was granted against the applicants before. A rule <i>nisi</i> was not issued in this matter against the applicants. The parties were, however, still in agreement, and still on the correct side, that the referral to <i>Plascon Evans</i> is of no effect on the present application for leave to appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="29"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It emphasised, as stated in the ruling for the application for referral for oral evidence, that an application for a restraint order is interim in nature. This position is accepted by the applicants who argue that they may endure a long time before the criminal proceedings are finalised. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="30"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is settled law that a dispute of fact will not be fatal to the application to grant a restraint order because all that the applicant must show is a <i>prima facie</i> right even if it is open to some doubt.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="" id="_ftnref9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Only if serious doubt arises will the restraint order not be granted. Given the test applicable at this stage of the proceedings for an interim interdict, the time is not ripe to resolve factual disputes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="31"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The main qualm of the applicants is that the whereabouts of the foreign directors is unknown to the PG, they will not be charged, and she will not be able to extradite them to Namibia to join the pending criminal prosecution. The PG insists that she will extradite the foreign directors, charge the applicants and if she cannot extradite them in time to join the pending criminal prosecution, she will prosecute them separately. I found the explanation of the PG to be reasonable, especially in view of the PG’s response that no formal extradition request was sent to Iceland and further that the foreign directors may be anywhere outside Iceland where Iceland cannot refuse the extradition request.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="32"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants claims that the PG is not <i>bona fide</i> when she stated that the applicants are to be charged. They further complain that they are refused an opportunity to cross-examine the PG as the PG will never be a witness in the criminal trial and this goes against resolving the dispute in a fair manner as envisaged by Article 12 of the Constitution. The PG disputes the assertion that she is not <i>bona fide</i>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="33"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">I find that the applicants miss the point. What is material in the pending application for a restraint order brought by the PG is whether she will succeed in convincing the court that the applicants are to be charged or not. At the criminal trial, if the PG fails to extradite the directors of the applicants and thus fails to charge the applicants, there can be no conviction of the applicants and ultimately no confiscation order against the applicants. This may render the applicants’ call to cross-examine the PG unnecessary and at the same cause no injustice to the applicants. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="34"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants laid great store on the court’s finding that what is required is a determination whether it appears on the face of it from the application, that that the person will be charged with an offence and that it appears to the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a confiscation order may be made against such person.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="35"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is apparent from the wording of s 25(2) and 24(1)<i>(b) </i>that the PG is only required to satisfy the Court that it appears on the face of it from the application that a person is to be charged with an offence and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a confiscation order may be made against such person. The hurdle that the PG is required to meet is light as per the wisdom of the legislature. The purpose, of which is to allow, applications for restraint orders not to be bogged down in disputes of fact, but to rather preserve the assets temporary pending the outcome of the criminal trial and related confiscation application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="36"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The applicants further complain that this court erred when it found that the allegation that Mr Johannes Stefansson will not testify constitutes speculation when the PG did not file a replying affidavit from Mr Stefansson where he confirms that he will testify. The PG disputed the said allegations and stated that Mr Stefansson who is listed as a witness will testify. Nothing more turns on this allegation and I reiterate that it amounts to speculation.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Conclusion</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="37"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In view of the findings stated above, I am of the opinion that the applicants have failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal and their application for leave to appeal falls to be dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="38"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">It is trite in our law that costs follow the event and I have not been persuaded to depart from this principle. The PG has succeeded to oppose the application for leave to appeal and deserves to be awarded costs. I, however, do not find justification to award costs beyond the cap provided for in rule 32 (11) in view of the fact that these are interlocutory proceedings.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="39"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the result, I make the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants’ application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order and ruling of this court </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">for the dismissal of the application to refer the matter to oral evidence and for the applicants’ to be granted leave to cross-examine the Prosecutor-General, is dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The first to the sixth applicants are ordered to pay the Prosecutor-General’s costs for opposing the application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, subject to rule 32 (11). </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The matter is postponed to 30 and 31 January 2023 at 09:00 for the hearing of the application for a restraint order and the </span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">rule <i>nisi </i>return date hearing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:28px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judge’s signature:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:28px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Note to the parties:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:71px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Sibeya</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:71px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Not applicable</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:692px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:31px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Counsel:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:22px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">1<sup>st</sup> to 6<sup>th</sup> Applicants:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:22px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Prosecutor-General</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:342px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:39px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:1px solid black" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr R Heathcote, SC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">assisted by Mr E Nekwaya</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Joos Agenbach Legal Practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; width:350px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px; height:39px; border-top:none; border-right:1px solid black; border-left:none" valign="top"> <p align="center" style="margin-left:2px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mr W Trengove, SC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:2px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">assisted by Mr S Akweenda</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:2px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Office of the Government Attorney</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="border-bottom:none; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-left:none; width:342px"> </td> <td style="border-bottom:none; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-left:none; width:76px"> </td> <td style="border-bottom:none; border-top:none; border-right:none; border-left:none; width:274px"> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Knowds NO v Josea</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 2010 (2) NR 754 (SC) para 10; <i>Shetu Trading c Chair, Tender Board of Namibia</i> 2012 (1) NR 162 (SC) paras 18-19; <i>Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia</i> 2017 (3) NR 880 (SC) para 51; <i>Elifas v Asino</i> 2020 (4) NR 1030 (SC) paras 13-14; <i>Minister of Finance v Hollard Insurance Company of Namibia Limited</i> 2021 (2) NR 524 (SC) para 70. <i>Zweni v Minister of Law and Order</i> 1993 (1) SA 523 (A).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">S v Scholtz</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 1998 NR 207 (SC) at 218-219.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(Case No. SA 21/2017), delivered on 28 February 2019 at para 16 where it was stated that: ‘</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The exercise of the court’s discretion in Rule 67 should be read with the overriding objective of the court rules to facilitate the resolution of the real issues in dispute justly and speedily, efficiently and cost effectively as far as practicable. By dismissing the case the court <i>a quo</i> left the issue as to ‘putative marriage’ and the proprietary rights of the parties unresolved despite the disputes being alive in the court. In this instance the court <i>a quo </i>failed to resolve the real issues in dispute justly, efficiently and cost effectively as far as practicable.’</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">High Court Act</span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">16 of 1990.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Ltd</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> 2017 (3) NR 880 (SC) para 51.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Elifas and others v Asino and Others</i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> 2020 (4) NR 1030 (SC) para 15-17.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="" id="_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">President of the RSA v South African Rugby Football Association</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 2000 (1) SA (CC) para 248.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="" id="_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Shilongo v Vector Logistics</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> (LCA 27/2021) [2014] NALCMD 33 (7 August 2014).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="" id="_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Setlogelo v Setlogelo</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> 1914 AD 221; <i>Webster v Mitchell</i> 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W); <i>National Treasury v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance</i> 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC) para 41. </span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:54:23 +0000 Mariana 26452 at http://namiblii.org Madisia v Edgars Stores Namibia t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2636 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 488 (16 September 2022); http://namiblii.org/na/judgment/high-court-main-division/2022/488 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Madisia v Edgars Stores Namibia t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2636 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 488 (16 September 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mariana</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 10/03/2022 - 19:50</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delict – Action for damages – Based on bodily injuries, pain and suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, loss of amenities of life, hospital and medical expenses and future hospital, medical expenses – Claim arising from an alleged fall on a wet floor in Jet Stores – Plaintiff is alleged to have sustained injuries to her hip, knee and her shoulder – </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach to </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">mutually destructive versions restated – The repetition of an allegation does not make it true – Court found that the plaintiff’s evidence is improbable and false – Court found that it was not proven on a balance of probabilities that plaintiff fell in Jet Stores and sustained the injuries complained of as a result – Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff claims in her particulars of claim that on 17 June 2016, while shopping in Jet Stores, Walvis Bay, she slipped and fell on a wet floor which resulted in injuries sustained to her hip, knee and shoulder. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries, more particularly pain, suffering and discomfort, emotional shock and trauma.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The defendant, in its plea, denied that the floor of the store was wet on 17 June 2016, and further denied that the plaintiff slipped and fell in its store on the said date or any other date. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had known injuries or medical conditions regarding her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016. It pleaded further that the plaintiff also had degenerative changes regarding her hips, femur and acetabulum.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, it is the duty of owners or other person or entity that controls a store to ensure that such store is safe for use by members of the public, however, in order for the defendant to be held liable for the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff there must be a causal link between the fall and the cause of damages.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, repeating an allegation to different persons several times does not elevate such allegation by any degree nor does it necessarily make such an allegation true.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held further that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the evidence of Dr Tietz who undisputedly assisted with over 500 orthopaedic surgeries and is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions supported the finding by Dr Moolman that the medical condition of the plaintiff resulted from degeneration of the joints related to age. The court accepted the opinions of Dr Moolman and Dr Tietz that the medical condition of the plaintiff was due to the degenerative condition related to age and not the alleged fall.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held further that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a wet floor in Jet Stores on 17 June 2016 and that she fell and sustained injuries as a result, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-msword file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.namiblii.org/files/judgments/nahcmd/2022/488/2022-nahcmd-488.doc" type="application/msword; length=228352">2022-nahcmd-488.doc</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:116.4pt center 225.65pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                            </b><shape id="_x0000_s1026" strokecolor="white" style="position:absolute; margin-left:478px; margin-top:-6px; width:123pt; height:19.5pt; z-index:251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <table><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="white" style="border-bottom:.100px solid white; vertical-align:top; background-color:white; border-top:.100px solid white; border-right:.100px solid white; border-left:.100px solid white; width:211px; height:39px"> <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> <div class="shape" style="padding:4.35pt 7.95pt 4.35pt 7.95pt" v:shape="_x0000_s1026"> <p style="margin-bottom:13px"> </p> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table></td> </tr></tbody></table><p><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></b></p> <p> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JUDGMENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                                  </b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Case no: </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL-2019/02636</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MARTHA SABINA MADISIA                                                                  PLAINTIFF</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">EDGARS STORES NAMIBIA LTD t/a </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JET STORES WALVIS BAY                                                     DEFENDANT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-108.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-116.75pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Neutral citation:       </span></span></span></b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Madisia v Edgars Stores Namibia t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(</span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL-2019/02636) [2022] NAHCMD 488 (16 September 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-108.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                  SIBEYA J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:                    30 - 31 March 2021; 01 April; 20-24 September 2021</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Order</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:                    12 April 2022                    </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Reasons:               16 September 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Flynote:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">       Delict – Action for damages – Based on bodily injuries, pain and suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, loss of amenities of life, hospital and medical expenses and future hospital, medical expenses – Claim arising from an alleged fall on a wet floor in Jet Stores – Plaintiff is alleged to have sustained injuries to her hip, knee and her shoulder – </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach to </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">mutually destructive versions restated – The repetition of an allegation does not make it true – Court found that the plaintiff’s evidence is improbable and false – Court found that it was not proven on a balance of probabilities that plaintiff fell in Jet Stores and sustained the injuries complained of as a result – Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Summary</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:    The plaintiff claims in her particulars of claim that on 17 June 2016, while shopping in Jet Stores, Walvis Bay, she slipped and fell on a wet floor which resulted in injuries sustained to her hip, knee and shoulder. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries, more particularly pain, suffering and discomfort, emotional shock and trauma.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The defendant, in its plea, denied that the floor of the store was wet on 17 June 2016, and further denied that the plaintiff slipped and fell in its store on the said date or any other date. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had known injuries or medical conditions regarding her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016. It pleaded further that the plaintiff also had degenerative changes regarding her hips, femur and acetabulum.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, it is the duty of owners or other person or entity that controls a store to ensure that such store is safe for use by members of the public, however, in order for the defendant to be held liable for the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff there must be a causal link between the fall and the cause of damages.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, repeating an allegation to different persons several times does not elevate such allegation by any degree nor does it necessarily make such an allegation true.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held further that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the evidence of Dr Tietz who undisputedly assisted with over 500 orthopaedic surgeries and is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions supported the finding by Dr Moolman that the medical condition of the plaintiff resulted from degeneration of the joints related to age. The court accepted the opinions of Dr Moolman and Dr Tietz that the medical condition of the plaintiff was due to the degenerative condition related to age and not the alleged fall.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held further that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a wet floor in Jet Stores on 17 June 2016 and that she fell and sustained injuries as a result, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div style="border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ORDER </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="_Hlk102334827" id="_Hlk102334827"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs, such costs include costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. </span></span></a></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The matter is regarded as finalised and removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div style="border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p align="center" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:center; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JUDGMENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SIBEYA J:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Introduction</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">This court is seized with a claim that the plaintiff fell on a wet floor in Jet Stores, Walvis Bay which resulted in injuries sustained to her hip, knee and shoulder.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> On the bases of the said injuries, plaintiff claims damages for pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, loss of amenities of life, hospital and medical expenses and future hospital and medical expenses. The claim is defended. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The parties and their representation</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff is Ms Martha Sabina Madisia, an adult Namibian female pensioner, and a resident of Walvis Bay, Namibia.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant is Edgars Stores Namibia LTD t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay, a company registered in terms of the applicable laws of the Republic of Namibia, with its registered address situated at LA Chambers, Dr Agostinho Neto Road, Windhoek Namibia. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Where reference is made to the plaintiff and the defendant jointly, they shall be referred to as the parties.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff is represented by Ms R Mondo while the defendant is represented by Ms L Ihalwa.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The pleadings</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff alleges, in her particulars of claim, that on 17 June 2016, while shopping in Jet Stores situated in Walvis Bay, she slipped and fell on a wet floor. She sustained bodily injuries to her left hip and knee as a result of the fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the negligence of the defendant or its employees whilst they were acting in the course and scope of their employment, by failing to:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Take reasonable steps to ensure that the floor is safe to the members of the public;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Secure the area that was wet;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Warn the public of the danger of the wet floor;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ensure that the floor was free of water or slippery fluids.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="8"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff further claims that the defendant or its employees owed a legal duty to the public to secure its floors and warn the public of the dangers of the wet floors. The defendant or its employees further knew or ought to have known that by failing to ensure that the floors were properly maintained and inspected, and that the wet floor was closed off and secured, the wet floors posed a danger to the public and the plaintiff in particular. The defendant or its employees’ failure to secure the wet floor constitutes a breach of their legal duty. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="9"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">As a result of the fall, the plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries, more particularly she experienced pain, suffering and discomfort, emotional shock and trauma. She required hospital and medical treatment. She further claims to suffer from limited but permanent general disability. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="10"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">As a result of the injuries, plaintiff claims that she suffered and continue to suffer from the following damages:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional shock and trauma, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life in the amount of N$500 000;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Hospital, medical and related expenses in the amount of N$4 927.99; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Future hospital, medical and related expenses estimated at N$300 000.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </span></span></span></p> <ol start="11"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant, in its plea, denied that the floors of its store were wet on 17 June 2016 and further denied that the plaintiff slipped and fell in its store on the said date or any other date. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had known injuries or medical conditions regarding her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016. It pleaded further that the plaintiff also had degenerative changes regarding her hips, femur and acetabulum. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="12"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant further pleaded that it has standard company policies in place regarding wet floors whereby its employees take reasonable steps to safeguard the public who are visiting the store. The defendant pleaded that its employees take the following measures;</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Carry out regular store floor inspections;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Upon noticing a wet floor, the employee remains at such place until such time that it is secured and cleaned;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">They place luminous warning signs at such place and customers are warned either by signs or verbal or both; </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">They immediately clean the place.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[13]    The defendant further denied breaching any legal duty that it owes to the public or the plaintiff. The defendant ultimately denied liability for the plaintiff’s claim and also denied the damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The pre-trial order</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[14]    This court in <i>Mbaile v Shiindi</i><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> emphasised the importance of listing issues in dispute between the parties, and remarked as follows in para [10]:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">            ‘The stage of the pre-trial hearing is arguably the most crucial procedural step leading to the trial. It requires of the parties or their legal representatives to analyse the pleadings and documents filed of record with an eagle eye and in order to unambiguously lay the factual issues in dispute before court. Inevitably, at this stage, the pleadings would have been closed and discovery occurred.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a> The parties are therefore duty bound to strip the pleadings and documents filed of record to their bare bones in order to identify the real issues for resolution by the court. Parties should further be mindful that they are bound to the issues which they bring to court for determination. It is not the responsibility of the court to navigate through various issues raised for determination in order to pinpoint what is relevant, but that of the parties to bring forth their disputes and point out the issues for determination from their dispute.’   </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[15]    It is vital for the parties to carry out their duties in order to limit the dispute to the real issues and not list every conceivable question and list it as a matter to be determined by the court. It is not the duty of the court to peruse through the pleadings and documents filed including witness statements in order to identify conceivable disputes of fact or law between the parties. This duty commences and rests with the parties. Similarly, it is the duty of the parties to also list issues that are not in dispute or common-cause between them. This will inevitably avoid sending the court into a wild goose chase for fact-finding on issues that are common-cause between the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    In <i>casu,</i> the parties filed their proposed pre-trial report dated 30 October 2020 which was adopted and made an order of court on 5 November 2020. They listed twenty issues of fact and eleven issues of law to be resolved at trial which brings the total number of issues for determination to thirty-one. As for issues which are common-cause between them, the parties only mentioned their citations and location of Jet Stores Walvis Bay as at the date of the alleged incident. The pre-trial report, in this matter, leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    Parties must be meticulous, and limit issues for determination to what is material and not list every wishful question for determination. The pre-trial report, as such report forms the basis of the trial, demands legal analysis of the issues so as not to waste the court’s time while simultaneously ensuring that the real disputes between the parties are clearly identified for determination and further that common-cause facts are set out.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    In summary, the issues of fact listed by the parties for determination are the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff visited the defendant’s store situated at the corner of 9<sup>th</sup> and 11<sup>th</sup> Avenue in Walvis Bay and fell in the store due to a wet floor and as a result of which she sustained injuries;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">If established that the floor was wet, whether or not the defendant’s employees took reasonable steps to secure the wet floor and whether or not they warned the public of the dangers of the wet floor;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff sustained injuries and experienced pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, trauma and limited permanent disability as a result of the fall;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff required hospital and medical care and treatment and whether she will require future hospital and medical care and treatment;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The costs of actual hospital and medical care and treatment and future related costs;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff have pre-existing injuries or medical conditions in respect of her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016 and effect thereof on her claim;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the defendant has the relevant policies regarding wet floors.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]    The following summarized relevant issues of law for determination were listed by the parties:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the defendant owed a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the floor of the store was safe for use by the public;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the defendant breached such duty and whether such breach was out of negligence or not;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered the damages claimed, and the quantum.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[20]    It is now opportune to consider the evidence led by the parties in order to determine whether the plaintiff proved her claim or not. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]     </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff took to the stand and testified in an attempt to prove her claim. She also led the evidence of Ms Priscilla Plaatjies, Dr Masimba Jinguri, Dr Cobus Moolman, Ms Cathy Kaabo, Dr Marius Johannes Steytler. The defendant on the other hand led the evidence of Ms Patricia Groenewald, Ms Laimi Kashopola, Ms Juliana Yvonne Olivier and Dr Wolfang Helmut Tietz.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Plaintiff’s evidence</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    The plaintiff testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that: On Friday, 17 June 2016 at around 11:00, she went to Jet Stores, Walvis Bay for shopping. It was her testimony further that whilst in the store at the kitchen section, she slipped and fell on the wet floor. She landed on the left side of her body, dropped the items from her hands and screamed. Her dress was wet. She looked up and noticed water dripping from the ceiling, so she testified. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> [23]   The plaintiff further testified that five ladies who worked for the defendant stood by while two of them assisted her. One of the ladies that assisted her was Ms Ms Priscilla Plaatjies. Another lady from the five picked up the items which she dropped from her hands. She was in shock, so she testified. She informed a certain employee Kelly in the store that she fell but Kelly did not respond. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    The plaintiff testified that she went to the till where Ms Laimi Kashopola was the cashier and paid for the items. Ms Kashopola informed her that she saw her fall. The plaintiff further testified that Ms Kashopola inquired from her if she injured herself when she fell, where she responded that she was fine as she felt no pain. She testified further that she then paid for items and left the store. She went home and did not really feel pain, resultantly, she did not think that she could be seriously injured. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    The plaintiff testified further that on Sunday morning, 19 June 2016, while preparing to go to church, she realised that her skin turned blue and was reddish in colour on the side where she fell. She felt pain in her hip and her knee was swollen. After church she spent the day in bed due to the pain.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    The plaintiff testified that on Monday, 20 June 2016, she approached the manager at the store, Ms Patricia Groenewald for financial assistance in order to seek medical help. According to the plaintiff, Ms Groenewald informed her that she was aware of the incident whereby the plaintiff fell in the store but further Ms Groenewald said nobody saw her falling and declined the plaintiff’s request for financial assistance.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    The plaintiff testified further that she proceeded to Dr Jinguri (her family doctor), and complained of pain and she was prescribed pain killers. Three days later she returned to Jet Stores with Ms Priscilla Plaatjies and approached Ms Groenewald and asked for financial assistance to pay for medical treatment. Ms Gronewald called some of the staff members and inquired if they saw the plaintiff fall. Some confirmed while others did not, so the plaintiff testified. Ms Groenewald then requested one of the employees to provide relief spray and cotton wool from the shelf to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further testified that she informed Ms Groenewald that if she could check the CCTV cameras she will observe the plaintiff falling but Ms Groenewald said that the CCTV cameras did not record the plaintiff’s incident.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    The plaintiff testified that her pain worsened with time and her mobility was impaired. The pain in the hip escalated to a point where she had to hold on to something to make her way around. On the advice of Dr Jinguri, she obtained crutches from the hospital. The crutches also caused her pain in the left shoulder. She sought medical assistance in November 2017, February and July 2018. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]    The plaintiff testified further that she consulted the Ombudsman about her case who then advised her to obtain two witnesses to support her version of the fall. She approached Ms Plaatjies who agreed to be her witness. She also consulted Mr Allister Beukes who was employed at Jet Stores. The plaintiff said Mr Beukes remembered that she fell in Jet Stores. I should hasten to state that Mr Beukes was not called to testify in this matter and as such what he is alleged to have said constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]    The plaintiff testified further that she contacted Ms Kashopola, an employee at Jet Stores and inquired if she knew about her fall. Ms Kashopola allegedly informed the plaintiff that she was advised not to discuss the fall without first obtaining permission to do so and she feared that she could lose her job. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    Plaintiff testified further that she consulted Dr Moolman who advised her that she will require three operations on the shoulder, hip and the knee. Dr Moolman advised her that the costs for the operation will be about N$350 000. As a result of the fall, her movements were impaired and thus affecting her life. She suffers from constant pain and has to resort to taking pain killers all the time.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    She testified that she fell as a result of the negligence of the defendant and or its employees who failed to warn the general public of the wet floor. The defendant and its employees further failed to ensure that the floor was not slippery and free of water.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    In cross-examination, she was questioned by Ms Ihalwa that she was quite about experiencing pain on Saturday, 18 June 2016, where she answered that she did not experience serious pain. The plaintiff was further questioned about the pain in the shoulder as the particulars of claim only refers to the pain in her knee and hip. The plaintiff said that she also had pain in her shoulder. It further emerged in cross-examination that later, in November 2017, the plaintiff complained of foot and ankle pain which affected her mobility and this was isolated from the alleged fall. She complained of chronic painful left knee and right ankle. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    The plaintiff testified when questioned in cross-examination, that her foot was operated by Dr Steytler before the alleged fall in Jet Stores which culminated in the plaintiff instituting action against Dr Steytler. The plaintiff said that she never informed Dr Jinguri about the operation (surgery) carried out by Dr Steytler. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    It was put to the plaintiff in cross-examination that in his report, Dr Jinguri stated that the pain to her hip might be age related and that she may have twisted her knee and further that her alleged fall (reported to him by the plaintiff) might aggravate the pre-existing joint pathological pain. To this, the plaintiff said that Dr Jinguri informed her so, despite the fact that she never told Dr Jinguri of her pre-existing pain. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[36]    The plaintiff was further questioned by Ms Ihalwa that when she was examined by Dr Tietz, she was asked about the extent of the pain she was experiencing in her knee and requested to measure the pain on a scale of 0 to 10. She said 10 out of 10. Dr Tietz disagreed.<b> </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[37]    The plaintiff testified that she did not inform Dr Tietz of the operation to her toes conducted by Dr Steytler. When asked for reason of not disclosing the operation to Dr Tietz, the plaintiff said that she forgot about it. Dr Tietz noticed that the plaintiff was operated, he questioned her about it and she confirmed. Dr Tietz said that the plaintiff’s knee did not require crutches.   <b> </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[38]    A letter dated 21 August 2009 by Dr Steytler was produced into evidence where it is stated that Dr Steytler examined the plaintiff in April 2002 where she complained of pain in her left knee following her fall that year and she was diagnosed with a medial collateral ligament injury. When this version of Dr Steytler was put to the plaintiff, she did not dispute but said that she could no longer remember if she injured her knee in 2002 or not, as a long time has passed. In re-examination the plaintiff confirmed that Dr Steytler examined her in April 2002 regarding the pain in the knee that resulted from her fall that year. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[39]    The plaintiff further testified that the pain escalated on Sunday, 19 June 2016. On Monday, 20 June 2016 while experiencing severe pain, she first went to Jet Store to seek financial assistance for medical help. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[40]    When pressed on the time that she fell in the store, the plaintiff said that it was around 11:00. When questioned further on the version by Ms Plaatjies that she fell in the store just before the store closed, the plaintiff said she could no longer recall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ms Priscilla Plaatjies </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> [41]   Ms Plaatjies testified that she knows the plaintiff as they live together in Kuisebmund, whom she would see at church and in the street. In 2016, she was employed as a casual worker at Jet Stores, Walvis Bay. She worked at the stores’ warehouse but before the store closes she would carry-out house-keeping which includes packing clothes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[42]    Ms Plaatjies testified that during the weekend on 17 June 2016, it was raining and she was carrying-out housekeeping when the plaintiff entered Jet Store and the store was about to close. She testified that the floor was wet and the plaintiff slipped and fell on the wet floor. She attended to the plaintiff who immediately left the shop. She testified further that there was a bucket on the floor catching water from the leaking roof. There was no sign that the floor was wet neither did any employee inform the public about the wet floor. Ms Plaatjies said that during the time of the alleged incident, she had a grievance with the employer (the defendant) and later she stopped working. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[43]    The plaintiff denied seeing a bucket on the floor close to where she fell. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Masimba Jinguri</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[44]    Dr Jinguri testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he is a general practitioner. The plaintiff is his patient from 2016. He testified that he examined the plaintiff on 20 June 2016, following her report that she fell in a store and found that she had swelling and tenderness of the left knee with bruising. After 20 June 2016, the plaintiff returned to him in 2017 where she complained of pain and swelling in the left knee. X-ray examination conducted between 2017 and 2018 revealed that the plaintiff had mild degenerative changes in the knee with osteophytes. The X-ray conducted on the left side hip revealed that it was irregular and impingement suggesting degenerative changes related to age. He testified that he was not aware of any pre-existing non pathology pain.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[45]    Dr Jinguri referred to the report by Dr A K Pandey an Orthopaedic Surgeon and a Specialist who examined the plaintiff in 2019 and who diagnosed her with post-traumatic left hip osteoarthritis (the disorder of joints characterised by cartilage degeneration in the bones common in older persons and causing pain, morning stiffness and which affects mobility) and left knee collateral ligament rapture and recommended operative interventions.  In cross-examination, Dr Jinguri testified that the medical history of the plaintiff that she fell in 2002 was not brought to his attention by the plaintiff and such information would have been relevant to the examination and diagnosis if the plaintiff. . </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Cobus Moolman  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[46]    Dr Moolman, an Orthopaedic Surgeon testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he examined the plaintiff on 23 July 2019. He examined the X-ray results of 2018 which showed impingement in both hips and the <i>coxa profunda</i> (the hip balls were slightly out of socket as a result of the cartilage being worn out). He found that the plaintiff has osteoarthritis on the left hip and the left knee and suspected degenerative left shoulder. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[47]    Dr Moolman testified further that the plaintiff informed him that she fell in a storein 2016 and wanted to hold another party liable for the fall. She wanted him to state in the report that her medical condition was due to the fall in the store in 2016 but he declined. He testified that the plaintiff’s medical condition is commonly observed in her age group as part of the degenerative process of the joints. She was then 62 years old. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[48]    Dr Moolman testified further that he could not find any features that would specifically link the plaintiff’s condition to the alleged fall of 2016. Dr Moolman provided a quotation for a hip replacement because the plaintiff requested for it but not that she needed it. It was his testimony further that surgery would be his last resort and not at an early stage as in this matter. When the plaintiff requested for the quotation she said that the operation costs were to be paid by another party.<b>  </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Cathy Kaambo</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[49]    Ms Kaambo testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that she knows the plaintiff for many years as they grew up together. She testified further that she accompanied the plaintiff to Dr Tietz for medical examination. Ms Kaambo testified that while they were on the way to Dr Tietz’s office the plaintiff tripped and almost fell where after she was put in a wheelchair and the plaintiff arrived at the doctor’s practice in a wheel chair.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[50]    Ms Kaambo further testified that she was present in the consulting room during the examination of the plaintiff by Dr Tietz. The plaintiff informed Dr Tietz that Dr Pandey said that she must be operated and Dr Tietz said he does not see the need for surgery. In the witness statement, Ms Kaambo stated that when she arrived with the plaintiff at Dr Tietz’s office, he greeted them and told Ms Kaambo to leave the office as he wanted to examine the plaintiff. Ms Kaambo left the office as a result and was later just informed by the plaintiff of what transpired between the plaintiff and Dr Tietz. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Maruis Johannes Steytler</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[51]    Dr Steytler, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he consulted the plaintiff from November 1998. In 1998 the plaintiff complained of pain in her right hip. A Computed Tomography (CT scan), which can show detailed images of the scanned body part, was carried out which revealed that she required no operation. He examined the plaintiff again in April 2002 where she complained of pain in her left knee after she fell in the same year. The plaintiff consulted him again in June 2005 where she complained of a painful right little toe and knob on the big toe. She was treated with surgery on the little toe and the knob on the big toe was removed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[52]    The plaintiff consulted him again in March and December 2006, with a complaint of pain in the ankle. In March 2008 she consulted him again and complained of pain in the right ankle. He operated on her on 13 March 2008. On 3 November 2008 she consulted him again and she had clawing of the fourth and fifth toes of the left foot which were stiff. She had instability due to clawed toes which were operated on. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Defendants’ evidence</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Patricia Groenewald</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[53]    Ms Groenewald testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that she was a Store Manager at Jet Stores Walvis Bay since August 2010 until August 2020 when the store was closed. Her duties included store and staff management, ceiling inspection to ensure that thieves do not hide in the ceiling and ensure security at the front door. The building of the store did not belong to the defendant and was occupied on lease. If anything on the building (including the lights, ceiling, tiles) was found to be broken it would be reported to the landlord to be fixed or replaced.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[54]    She testified further that in the event of a wet floor in the store while cleaning, the staff members would put a red corn as a warning sign.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[55]    She testified that on 16 June 2016 she was at work stationed at the office inside the store. As per normal practice she attended to regular rounds through the store. She testified that she did not witness the alleged fall of the plaintiff nor did any customer, staff member or any person inform her of the alleged fall of the plaintiff. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[56]    Ms Groenewald testified further that the plaintiff, unaccompanied by anybody, only approached her on Monday, 20 June 2016 where the plaintiff informed her that she fell in the store on Friday, 17 June 2016. Her words were: “Party, are you aware that I fell in the store. Can we see the CCTC footage?” The plaintiff had no bandages or a kierie with her. When she questioned the plaintiff for the reason why she did not report the incident on the same day, the plaintiff answered that she did not feel well and she wanted to go to church. The plaintiff further said that she thought that there were CCTV cameras or footage that recorded her fall. Ms Groenewald informed the plaintiff that there were no CCTV cameras at the side of the store where she alleged to have fallen. The CCTV cameras were installed at the entrance, service centre and the backdoor and at the cash office. At one stage Ms Groenewald said that the plaintiff did not request for the CCTV footage. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[57]    Ms Groenewald further testified that the plaintiff asked her for assistance but she declined the request as she was duty bound to report the claim and the required processes to the store Regional Manager within 24 hours of the incident or injury. Ms Groenewald denied the allegation that she provided the plaintiff with relief spray and cotton wool and said further that the store did not stock pain relief sprays.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[58]    She testified further that she knew the plaintiff who was a regular customer at the store for about 10 years. She would see her and they would have casual conversations from time to time. The plaintiff always had bandages on her legs or walked with assistance of a kierie.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[59]    During cross-examination, Ms Mondo put it to Ms Groenewald that the ceiling in the store was leaking. Ms Groenewald denied such statement and said further that there were no water pipes at the side of the store where the incident is alleged to have occurred and the roof is made out of concrete and therefore disputed the assertion that the ceiling was leaking.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[60]    Ms Mondo further put a follow up statement to Ms Groenewald that it was raining on that specific day. To this, Ms Groenewald stated that she could not recall that on Friday, 17 June 2016 it was raining and she said further that she was born and raised in Walvis Bay and <u>during the month of June it is usually hot without rain</u>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[61]    Ms Groenewald testified further that in October 2018, she became aware of the plaintiff’s efforts to persuade staff members to testify on the plaintiff’s behalf for a claim resulting from her alleged fall in the shop. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[62]    Ms Groenewald further testified that Ms Priscilla Plaatjies is a former casual employee of the defendant who was appointed as a Casual Stock Counter on 27 May 2016 but commenced employment on 11 June 2016.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> She testified further that Ms Plaatjies worked at the back of the store and had no direct contact with customers. Ms Plaatjies was still new and was being trained for weeks before she could work directly with customers. Ms Plaatjies was only allowed to work in the store where customers have access, when she had to attend to housekeeping (packing up or folding clothes and tidying the displays) and this was only after all the customers have left the store and just before closing time. The store opened at 08h30 and housekeeping time was usually from 16h45 to 17h30. Before 16h45, Ms Plaatjies never worked on the floor where the customers had access.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[63]    Ms Plaatjies had a labour dispute with the defendant regarding a salary for two weeks and reported this to the Office of the Labour Commissioner.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Laimi Kashopola</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[64]    Ms Kashopola testified that in 2016, she was employed by the defendant as a cellular phone repair specialist. She was telephoned by the plaintiff during November 2018 and asked if she remembered that the plaintiff fell in Jet Store Walvis Bay. This was the first time that she learnt about the alleged fall of the plaintiff and she responded to the plaintiff that she was at work and will phone her back later. She did not return her call. She testified that she did not witness the alleged fall by the plaintiff. She denied the allegations that she informed the plaintiff that she saw her fall in the store and that the plaintiff could have injured herself. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[65]    In cross-examination, Ms Kashopola was asked by Ms Mondo as to what actions do the employees take when there is a leakage in the roof. She responded that they would put a sign in order to alert the customers of the wet floor and they would notify the landlord of such leakage. She testified that on Friday, 17 June 2016, she was a permanent employee on duty and knows that the ceiling was not leaking and there was no wet floor in the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Juliana Yvonne Olivier</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[66]    Ms Olivier testified that she is a nurse employed at the WH Tietz Medical Practice in Swakopmund. She testified further that she was present when the plaintiff was examined by Dr Tietz on 3 July 2020. It was her testimony that on the said day, the plaintiff entered the consulting room by herself using a crutch. Dr Tietz physically examined the plaintiff regarding her complaints and alleged injuries while Ms Olivier stood by. Dr Tietz touched the plaintiff’s arm, leg and knee during the examination. Ms Olivier testified further that Dr Tietz made no verbal diagnosis.    </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Wolfgan Helmut Tietz</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[67]    Dr Tietz testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he is a medical practitioner and specialist family physician practicing as such in Swakopmund. He said that on 3 July 2020, he examined the plaintiff on instructions of the defendant’s legal practitioners. The examination was in respect of the alleged fall of the plaintiff in Jet Stores Walvis Bay in June 2016. At the consulting room on 3 July 2020, the plaintiff sat with her left arm in a sling and had one crutch with her which she took into her left hand after she took her sling off. She also used her left arm to get off the chair. She walked slowly but unassisted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[68]    Dr Tietz testified further that he physically and clinically examined the plaintiff, examined her hip rotation, shoulder bent, knee bent and straightened and the plaintiff executed all the movements.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[69]    Dr Tietz examined the plaintiff in the presence of Ms Olivier. Dr Tietz’s examination to the left shoulder was extremely painful and sensitive to touch and his clinical opinion was early osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint condition) with a rotator cuff syndrome. The examination to the left hip revealed limited internal rotation and his clinical opinion was early osteoarthritis. The examination to the left knee showed bilateral genu valgus (knock knees) left knee more than right knee and both feet had claw toes with early calluses. The clinical opinion was osteoarthritis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[70]    She could tip-toe and heel walk while holding onto the examination couch. There was a clear discrepancy between her alleged experienced pain and her facial or body expressions and movements during examination. When getting off the couch she pressed onto the surface with her left hand. Her body expressions were therefore not commensurate to her alleged pain levels. The plaintiff was further under a misconception that her left clavicle (collar bone) was fractured but this the X-ray showed degenerative <i>acromio-clavicular</i> junction (the joint that connects the shoulder blade to the collar bone) and not a fracture. During the examination the plaintiff was requested to state her level of pain experienced at that time out of 10 and she said 10 of out of 10, but this was not commensurate to the observation made by Dr Tietz. She did not demonstrate that she was experiencing excruciating pain. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[71]    After investigating the plaintiff’s history, consultations, special investigations, her age (63 years old), Dr Tietz agreed with the statement made by Dr Moolman on 23 July 2019 that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘… her condition is commonly seen in her age group as part of the degenerative process of joints. I could not find any features that would specifically link her condition to the alleged incident</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">.’</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[72]    Dr Tietz emphasised in his testimony that he could not find concrete medical evidence which confirms that the plaintiff’s condition resulted from a fall in the store as she alleged. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[73]    Dr Tietz expressed reservations regarding the validity of the diagnosis made by Dr Pandey on 10 July 2018 and 23 January 2019, that the plaintiff was diagnosed with left hip joint post-traumatic osteoarthritis and left knee joint post-traumatic<b> </b>lateral collateral ligament rupture as Dr Pandey ordered X-rays. The X-rays do not show any trauma or injuries. The X-rays also cannot show the knee ligament rapture as ligaments are soft tissues which are not visible on the X-rays and that is why the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (the MRI) was requested. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[74]    Osteophytes are little growth which develops between the joints.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[75]    In respect of <i>Coxa profundus</i> in the left knee, Dr Tietz testified that it occurs when the cup of the joint (hip) is deep into the hip socket thus causing the hip not to move normally and causes early joint pain and limited movement in the joints. In this scenario early</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">osteoarthritis is expected.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Dr Tietz concluded that any person with</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">osteoarthritis can benefit from hip replacement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[76]    Dr Tietz explained that primary osteoarthritis occurs where there is no direct cause. This is caused by age, overweight, excessive alcohol intake, lack of exercise, diabetes, etc. Secondary osteoarthritis requires a definitive cause e.g. joint infection, gout, etc. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[77]    Dr Tietz testified that when one falls to the ground on his or her left side and is injured the impact of the injury, will be experienced on the particular part of the body or joint which hit the ground. If the body part that hits a hard surface is a person’s hip, the knee and the shoulder will not be affected. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[78]    Dr Tietz further testified regarding the report compiled by Dr Junguri of 13 July 2018.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Dr Tietz said that Dr Jinguri stated in his report that X-rays were conducted on the plaintiff which showed mild degenerative changes in the knee with osteophytes. Dr Jinguri further said in the report that there was laxity in joints which was suggestive of a possible tear of lateral ligaments hence the MRI scan was requested. X-rays of the hip showed degenerative changes which are age related. It was the testimony of Dr Tietz that the conclusion by Dr Jinguri reached that the possible fall of the plaintiff, might aggravate a pre-existing joint pathology pain contradicts his earlier finding of degenerative changes. Dr Tietz testified further that for trauma to cause secondary</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">osteoarthritis the force must be extensive than just falling. The impact on the ground and the weight of the person may also play a role. The said trauma must cause a fracture and result in immediate impact like limping.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[79]    Dr Tietz further questioned the plaintiff for the reason why she did not inform him about the operation carried out Dr Steyter, which Dr Tietz only noticed during the examination, the plaintiff said “oooh I forgot”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[80]    During cross-examination, Dr Tietz conceded that he is not an orthopaedic surgeon (a surgeon specialising in injuries of the musculoskeletal system including bones). He, however, said that he has assisted orthopaedic surgeons during surgeries since 2008 and have so far assisted in over 500 surgeries. He said that he is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions and would only refer to orthopaedic surgeon for chronic or exacerbated cases. When questioned whether pain in the knee and the hip was associated with the fall, Dr Tietz testified that there was no radiology evidence to support the claim for the injury, and furthermore, pain cannot be observed but an inflammation can be seen. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Brief submissions by counsel</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[81]    Ms Mondo argued that the plaintiff walked properly without assistance on 17 June 2016 when she fell on a wet floor in the defendant’s store. Ms Mondo further argued that the plaintiff approached the defendant’s employees to tell them about her fall, she requested for the CCTV footage, she approached the Ombudsman for assistance, she telephoned employees of the defendant and asked them to confirm that she fell in the defendant’s store and this insistence, according to Ms Mondo, is not common unless if the plaintiff indeed fell in the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[82]    Ms Mondo further argued that the version of the plaintiff was confirmed by Ms Plaatjies who testified that “Ms Madisia was at the store that Saturday. As she was walking, she slipped and fell on the floor, the floor was wet.” It was Ms Plaaitjies evidence that the fall occurred over the weekend. Ms Mondo further argued that neither Ms Groenewald nor Ms Kashopola could observe the plaintiff fall as they were not at the area where the plaintiff allegedly fell. Ms Mondo further urged the court to draw a negative inference against the defendant for failure to lead the evidence of Mr Allister Beukes. It was the defendants’ case that when MR beukes was consulted he was under the influence of alcohol, this court therefore draws no adverse inference against the defendant for failure to call Mr Beukes.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[83]    Ms Ihalwa counter argued contrariwise that Ms Groenewald was clear that as a store manager she would go through the sales floor in order to ensure that the store is 100% safe for customers before it is opened and if there was a leak or a wet floor she would have seen it during her rounds. Ms Ihalwa further argued that Ms Groenewald stated that the ceiling of the store was made out of concrete and that Ms Plaatjies who was a casual worker remained and worked at the store room until such time that the store closed and there were no customers, when she would come to the sales section of the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[84]    It was further argued by Ms Ihalwa that both Ms Groenewald and Ms Kashopola testified clearly that whenever there was a wet floor from cleaning a warning sign to that effect would be put on the floor to warn the public. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[85]    Ms Ihalwa argued that the plaintiff is unreliable as she testified that she entered the store at around 11:00 and when questioned about Ms Plaatjies’ version that she was in store when the store was about to close, the plaintiff changed her version and said that she could not remember the time that she entered the store. Ms Plaatjies was not allowed in the store while there were customers and therefor, argued Ms Ihalwa, she could not witness the fall. Ms Ihalwa called for the plaintiff’s claim to be dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Burden of proof</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[86]    It is settled law that the plaintiff bears the burden to prove her claim on a balance of probabilities. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[87]    For the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the defendant, the following test as described by Holmes JA in <i>Kruger v Coetzee<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> must be proven:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘For the purposes of liability <i>culpa</i> arises if- </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">a <i>diligens paterfamilias</i> in the position of the defendant- </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">(i)would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">(ii) would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and (b) the defendant failed to take such steps.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">This has been constantly stated by this Court for some 50 years. Requirement (a) (ii) is sometimes overlooked. Whether a <i>diligens paterfamilias</i> in the position of the person concerned would take any guarding steps at all and, if so, what steps would be reasonable, must always depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. No hard and fast basis can be laid down. Hence the futility, in general, of seeking guidance from the facts and results of other cases.’</span>    </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[88]    The parties were <i>ad idem</i>, and correctly so, on the duty that befalls storeowners or persons in control of shops. It is the duty of owners or other person or entity that controls a store to ensure that such store is safe for use by members of the public. In <i>Probst v Pick n Pay Retailers</i>,<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the court remarked as follows regarding a duty owed by storeowners:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘As a matter of law, the defendants [the supermarkets] owed a duty to persons entering their store at Southgate during trading hours, to take reasonable steps to ensure that, at all times during trading hours, the floor was kept in a condition that was reasonably safe for shoppers, bearing in mind that they would spend much of their time in the store with their attention focused on goods displayed on the shelves, or on their trolleys, and not looking at the floor to ensure that every step they took was safe.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[89]    The court in the <i>Probst </i>case proceeded to state that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">            ‘The duty on the keepers of a supermarket to take reasonable steps is not so onerous as to require that every spillage must be discovered and cleaned up as soon as it occurs. Nevertheless, it does require a system that will ensure that spillages are not allowed to create potential hazards for any material length of time, and that they will be discovered, and the floor made safe, with reasonable promptitude.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[90]    In order for the defendant to be held liable for the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff there must be a causal link between the fall and the cause of damages. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Analysis</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[91]    At the outset of the consideration of the evidence led, I consider it prudent to address some of the questions raised for determination by the parties. The allegations that the plaintiff entered Jet store and fell in the store as a result of the wet floor and that the plaintiff consequently suffered injuries should, in my view, be determined first before other questions raised by the parties are resorted to.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[92]    It was established that the plaintiff was a regular customer at Jet Stores and it was not in dispute that the plaintiff entered Jet Store on Friday, 17 June 2016. What is heavily disputed by the defendant are the allegations that there was a wet floor in the store and that the plaintiff fell in the store on 17 June 2016, where she sustained injuries. The versions presented by the plaintiff and the defendant are miles apart and mutually destructive in respect of the wet floor, the fall, and the injuries sustained.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mutually destructive versions </span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[93]    The plaintiff testified that on Friday, 17 June 2016, at around 11:00 in the morning she entered Jet Stores for shopping and while in the store she slipped and fell due to a wet floor. She looked up and noticed a hole in the ceiling where water was leaking. The alleged fall signifies the genesis and the foundation on which the injuries sustained emanates from. Ms Plaatjies supported the version of the plaintiff that she observed the plaintiff fall and assisted to pick her up but this was just before the store closed. The store closed around 17:30. Ms Groenewald and Ms Kashopola testified to the contrary that there was no wet floor in the store on 17 June 2016 and the plaintiff did not fall in the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[94]    The aforesaid versions<i>, inter alia</i>, constitute mutually destructive evidence. They are versions incapable of co-existing.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[95]    The approach to mutually destructive versions was set out in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in </span></span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">SFW Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others, </span></span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">where the court remarked that:<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref9"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[9]</span></span></span></span></sup></sup></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">          ‘</span></span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The technique generally employed by our courts in resolving factual disputes of this nature may conveniently be summarised as follows. To come to a conclusion on the disputed issues, a court must make findings on (a) the credibility of the various factual witnesses; (b) their reliability; and (c) the probabilities. As to (a), the court’s finding on the credibility of a particular witness will depend on its impression about the veracity of the witness. That, in turn, will depend on a variety of subsidiary factors, not necessarily in order of importance, such as (i) the witness’ candour and demeanour; (ii) his bias, latent and blatant; (iii) internal contradictions in his evidence; (iv) external contradictions with what was pleaded or what was put on his behalf, or with established fact and his with his own extra-curial statements or actions; (v) the probability or improbability of particular aspects of his version; (vi) the calibre and cogency of his performance compared to that of other witnesses testifying about the same incident or events. . .’  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[96]    The above passage, therefore, provides that where the probabilities do not resolve the matter, the court can resort to the credibility of witnesses in order to find in favour of the one or the other </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">party. A consideration of the candour and demeanour of witnesses, self-contradiction or contradiction with the evidence of other witnesses who are supposed to present the same version of events must be assessed.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[97]    In <i>National Employers’ General Insurance v Jagers</i>,<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref10"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a> Eksteen AJP said the following while discussing the approach to mutually destructive evidence: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">            ‘In a civil case … where the onus rests on the plaintiff as in the present case, and where there are two mutually destructive stories, he can only succeed if he satisfies the Court on a preponderance of probability that his version is true and accurate and therefore acceptable, and that the other version advanced by the defendant is therefore false or mistaken and falls to be rejected.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[98]    Guided by the above, I consider, hereunder, the evidence led and submissions made.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Analysis of evidence and submissions</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The alleged fall</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[99]    The plaintiff’s evidence was that on Friday, 17 June 2016, she entered Jet Store, Walvis Bay at around 11:00 for shopping. Ms Plaatjies, on the other hand, testified that it was during the weekend on 17 June 2016, when the store was about to close that the plaintiff entered Jet Stores. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was a regular customer at Jet Stores, Walvis Bay. The plaintiff’s evidence that she entered Jet Store on 17 June 2016, is not disputed by the defendant. 17 June 2016 was a Friday.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[100]   The evidence established that the closing time for Jet Stores was 17:30. Ms Plaatjies testified that the plaintiff entered the store when such store was about to close, which is irreconcilable with the time of 11:00 that the plaintiff claims to have entered the store. Confronted with this different time, the plaintiff said that she could not clearly recall the time that she entered the store given that a long time had passed from 17 June 2016, to the time that she testified. Her witness statement recorded in June 2021, which was received to form part of evidence reveals that she said that she entered Jet Stores on 17June 2016 at around 11:00.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[101]   It was plaintiff’s evidence that when she was in the store she collected items to be paid for, and while at the kitchen side she slipped and fell on the wet floor. She landed on the left side of her body, dropped the items from her hands and screamed. She looked up and saw water dripping from the ceiling. Five employees of the defendant looked on while two assisted her. She informed a certain Kelly (one of the employees) that she fell. Kelly did not testify. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[102]   The plaintiff’s version about the fall was corroborated by Ms Plaatjies who stated that the plaintiff slipped and fell on the wet floor. She attended to the plaintiff who immediately left the shop. This is contrary to the testimony of the plaintiff who said that when she stood up from where she fell in the store she went to the cashier, Ms Kashopola, and paid for the items in her hand, not that she immediately left the store.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[103]   Of great importance, given the significant role that it is alleged to have played, is the bucket used to fetch water that was observed close to where the plaintiff fell by Ms Plaatjies. Crucial as it is because it confirms the version of the plaintiff that indeed the roof or ceiling was leaking and further that there was a wet floor and there was even a bucket to catch water, the plaintiff denied observing a bucket on the floor where she allegedly fell. Ms Plaatjies also noticed a bucket used to fetch water. This, in my view, is a serious discrepancy in the evidence of the plaintiff and Ms Plaatjies. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[104]   Both the plaintiff and Ms Plaatjies said that there was no warning sign of the wet floor to members of the public. It was the testimony of Ms Groenewald and Ms Kashopola that whenever the floor was wet, warning signs would be displayed in order to caution the members of the public about the wet floor and the defendant had policies in place which regulated what should happen when there is a wet floor.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[105]   The plaintiff testified that after she fell, she stood up and went to the till where Ms Kashopola was and paid for the items and Ms Kashopola informed her that she saw her fall and inquired if the plaintiff was not injured. Ms Kashopola, in her testimony, disputed the said version of the plaintiff. According to Ms Kashopola, she learnt about the alleged fall of the plaintiff for the first time when plaintiff telephoned her in November 2018. The reason why the plaintiff telephoned Ms Kashopola was to inquire if she remembered that the plaintiff fell in Jet Stores. Ms Kashopola denied such knowledge and further denied inquiring if the plaintiff was injured or not. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[106]   Ms Mondo took issue with the fact that Ms Kashopola did not state, in her witness statement, that when she was telephoned by the plaintiff she informed her that she did not witness her fall and this only surfaced during her oral evidence. Ms Mondo is correct that, in her witness statement, Ms Kashopola only stated that when the plaintiff telephoned her and inquired if she remembered that the plaintiff fell in Jet Store, she said that she was at work at the time of the phone call and could not talk and that she will call the plaintiff later. She blocked the plaintiff’s number and never returned her call. However, the sentence which forms part of her witness statement that follows immediately after the sentence where she says that she blocked the plaintiff’s number, Ms Kashopola states that: “I repeat that I did not witness the plaintiff’s alleged fall.” </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[107]   The fact that Ms Kashopola stated in her witness statement that she did not witness the alleged fall and in her oral evidence that she informed the plaintiff that she did not witness the alleged fall reveals, in my view, no discrepancies, or at the very least an immaterial discrepancy. The message that comes out of the two statements is that she did not witness the plaintiff’s alleged fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[108]   When she was questioned in cross-examination by Ms Mondo about procedures carried out when there is a leak in the roof, Ms Kashopola testified that the employees would put a sign to alert the customers of the wet floor and they will inform the landlord. Ms Kashopola further denied allegations that the floor was wet on 17 June 2016.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[109]   Ms Kashopola testified in a forthright manner and struck me as a credible witness with nothing to gain from this matter. She was a reliable witness who spoke frankly and was impressive as a witness. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[110]    It was the plaintiff’s evidence that she only approached Ms Groenewald on Monday, 20 June 2016, for financial assistance to seek medical care. Plaintiff said that Ms Groenewald informed her that she knew that the plaintiff fell in the store. Ms Groenewald then, plaintiff said, called staff members and inquired if they observed the plaintiff fall, some confirmed while others did not. Ms Groenewald, who no longer works for Jet Stores from August 2020, following the closure of the store testified that she did not observe the plaintiff fall nor did any person inform her of such alleged fall.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[111]   Ms Groenewald testified that on 20 June 2016, the plaintiff inquired if she was aware that the plaintiff fell in the store on 17 June 2016, which alleged event she had no knowledge of. Ms Groenewald further denied being informed by other employees that the plaintiff fell in the store. Contrary to the version of the plaintiff that Ms Groenewald provided her with a relief spray and cotton wool from the shelf, Ms Groenewald testified that the plaintiff only asked for financial assistance which Ms Groenewald declined as she was required to notify the Regional Manager within 24 hours of the incident. Ms Groenewald denied providing the plaintiff with a relief spray and cotton wool from the shelf as the store did not even stock relief sprays. This evidence of Ms Groenewald that the store did not even stock relief sprays was not disputed. I could not find any reason or motive for Ms Groenewald to fabricate her evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[112]   It was during the cross-examination that Ms Mondo put to Ms Groenewald that the ceiling was leaking. Ms Groenewald denied the allegation and said that there were no water pipes at the side of the store where the alleged incident was said to have occurred and the roof is made out of concrete. This testimony by Ms Groenewald was elicited by Ms Mondo and it remained unchallenged. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[113]   Ms Mondo further put it to Ms Groenewald that on the date of the alleged incident it was raining. This suggestion was dispelled by Ms Groenewald who said that although she could not recall if it was raining on 17 June 2016, it could not have rained as she was born and raised in Walvis Bay and it never rained in June. This answer by Ms Groenewald demonstrated honesty and lack of ulterior motive on the part of Ms Groenewald. Ms Groenewald could easily say that it did not rain on 17 June 2016 but where she could not recall she did not hesitate to say so. This counts towards her credibility. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[114]   In respect of Ms Plaatjies, Ms Groenewald said that she was not allowed in the store when there were customers and she was still new and a casual worker who was assigned at the back of the store. She was only allowed in the store for housekeeping when the customers were gone. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[115]   The plaintiff testified that she approached the Ombudsman in September 2018 about her condition allegedly emanating from the fall and was advised to obtain two witnesses to support her case. The Ombudsman did not testify.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[116]   I find that the plaintiff went all out from inception to try and identify persons who could validate her allegations that she fell in the store. Why the plaintiff did not call some of the five employees who allegedly saw her fall, is a material question that remain unanswered. The plaintiff insisted that Ms Kashopola said that she saw her fall which was denied by Ms Kashopola who was impressive as a witness. To the contrary, the plaintiff performed poorly as a witness, in my view, who appeared hell bend to establish liability on the part of the defendant. This position including the plaintiff going on a fishing expedition to find evidence that can support her claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[117]   Ms Plaatjies, in my view, is not an independent witness, as she knew the plaintiff and they lived together in Kuisebmund, she was not allowed to be in the store during the time that customers were shopping. She observed a bucket close to where the plaintiff fell and which bucket was not observed by the affected person, the plaintiff. It was the testimony of Ms Kashopola and Ms Groenewald that the roof did not leak on 17 June 2016. Coupled with the undisputed evidence that the roof of the store was made out of concrete, that Ms Groenewald conducted routine inspection of the store, the undisputed evidence of Ms Groenewald that in June Walvis Bay is hot with no rain, that whenever there is water on the floor from cleaning, the employees put up warning signs in order to caution members of the public of such wet floor, the evidence points to the reality that it has not been established that there was a wet floor on 17 June 2016 in Jet Stores. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[118]   Dr Jinguri examined the plaintiff on 20 June 2016 and found that she had a swelling and tenderness of the left knee with bruising. According to Dr Jinguri, a general practitioner, the X-ray examination conducted between 2017 and 2018 showed mild degenerative changes to the knee with osteophytes. The plaintiff did not inform Dr Jinguri of her medical history emanating from her fall in 2002 and he was not aware of the plaintiff’s pre-existing non pathological pain. Dr Jinguri relied on the report by Dr Pandey who found post traumatic left hip osteoarthritis and left knee collateral ligament rapture. As stated above, Dr Pandey did not testify. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[119]   Dr Moolman, upon examination of the plaintiff, found that she has osteoarthritis on the left hip and left knee which is commonly part of the degenerative process of the joints in her age group. Dr Moolman said that he could not find features that link her medical condition to the alleged fall. Dr Moolman testified that the plaintiff wanted him to mention in his report that her medical condition was due to the fall in the store in 2016 which request he declined.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[120]   The plaintiff’s insistence that Dr Moolman should write in his report that the injuries emanates from the alleged fall in the store instead of leaving the expert to express his opinion is tantamount to an attempt to influence the opinion of the doctor. This attitude of the plaintiff is, in my view, synonymous with going all out to build a case which can justify her claim, come what may. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[121]   Ms Mondo argued that the persistence of the plaintiff in her claim that she fell in the store, the plaintiff’s report to Ms Groenewald that she fell in the store, her report to the Ombudsman, her report to the doctors are indicative of truthfulness. I disagree. When the truthfulness of the allegation is not established it matters not how many times such allegation is repeated to different persons, it will still remain unproven. A false averment is not elevated to truthfulness by virtue of being repeatedly mentioned to different persons.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[122]   Dr Moolman further testified that the plaintiff informed him that the operation costs were to be paid by another party, hence she requested for a quotation for the surgery, not that surgery was actually necessary. This proves that the plaintiff was gathering records to establish a case and ensure that somebody pays for the surgery, hence she sought to obtain a quotation even when it was not really necessary.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[123]   Dr Tietz, a family physician testified that he examined the plaintiff on 3 July 2020, who sat with her left arm in a sling and had one crutch which she took with her left hand after she removed her sling. When she stood up, she pressed on the couch with her left hand. Dr Tietz found that her physical expression was not commensurate with her alleged pain levels which said was at 10 out of 10. He stated that he could not find concrete medical evidence that the plaintiff’s condition resulted from the fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[124]   Dr Tietz questioned the diagnosis made by Dr Pandey of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the left hip and post-traumatic lateral collateral ligament rapture in the left knee. The X-rays ordered by Dr Pandey do not show any trauma or injuries. Dr Tietz further said that the X-rays cannot show the knee ligament rapture as ligaments are soft tissues which are not visible on the X-rays and requires an MRI scan. Dr Tietz further stated that the conclusion reached by Dr Jinguri that the alleged fall aggravated the pre-existing pathology pain was inconsistent with Dr Jinguri’s earlier finding of degenerative changes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[125]   Dr Tietz testified further that for trauma to cause secondary osteoarthritis the force must be extensive than falling. The trauma must cause a fracture and result in immediate limping. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[126]   The plaintiff did not inform Dr Tietz about the surgery conducted on her by Dr Steytler and when Dr Tiez questioned her about the said surgery, the plaintiff said “oooh I forgot”. How the plaintiff could forget her previous surgery is hard to believe. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[127]   Dr Jinguri’s report placed heavy reliance on the report by Dr Pandey (who did not testify). Dr Jinguri further diagnosed the plaintiff with osteoarthritis while stating that the alleged fall could have aggravated the plaintiff’s medical condition. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[128]   I have no reason to doubt the evidence of Dr Tietz who have undisputedly assisted with over 500 orthopaedic surgeries and is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions. Dr Tietz supported the finding by Dr Moolman that the condition of the plaintiff resulted from degeneration of the joints related to age. I, therefore, accept the opinions of Dr Moolman and Dr Tietz that the medical condition of the plaintiff was due to the degenerative condition related to age and not the alleged fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Conclusion </span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[129]   After considering the evidence led in its totality I find that the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a wet floor in Jet Stores on 17 June 2016 and that as a result she fell and sustained injuries on which she bases her claim. I further find that the plaintiff failed to prove that her medical condition resulted from the alleged fall.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Costs</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[130]   It is a well beaten principle of our law that costs follow the event. No compelling reasons were placed before the court why the said principle should not be followed neither could be established from the evidence why such principle should be departed from. As a result, the plaintiff is awarded costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Order</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[131]   In the result, I order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs, such costs include costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The matter is regarded as finalised and removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">_____________</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">O S Sibeya</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPEARANCES:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">PLAINTIFF:                                 R Mondo</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:240px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Of Nixon Marcus Public Law Office, </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:240px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Windhoek.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">DEFENDANT:                             L Ihalwa </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                                                  Instructed by ENSAfrica / Namibia, </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:192px; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Windhoek</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Mbaile v Shiindi</span></i> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">(HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-DEL-2018/00316) [2020] NAHCNLD 152 (22 October 2020).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> Rule 26.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit DD.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit D.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit Y2.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit U.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> <i>Kruger v Coetzee</i></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-H</span>.</span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Probst v Pick n Pay Retailers</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> [1998] 2 All SA 186 (W). See also: <i>Gordon v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another</i> (32665/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 773 (26 September 2014).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> <i>SFW Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others</i> 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at page 14H – 15E.</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> <i>National Employers’ General Insurance v Jagers</i> 1984 (4) SA 437 (E) at 440E-F.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit E.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-0a1a3c9ec76c0fefa3a139ab950775ec52d5ea72f8e1694c103826121b4576fb"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:116.4pt center 225.65pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                            </b><shape id="_x0000_s1026" strokecolor="white" style="position:absolute; margin-left:478px; margin-top:-6px; width:123pt; height:19.5pt; z-index:251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <table><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="white" style="border-bottom:.100px solid white; vertical-align:top; background-color:white; border-top:.100px solid white; border-right:.100px solid white; border-left:.100px solid white; width:211px; height:39px"> <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> <div class="shape" style="padding:4.35pt 7.95pt 4.35pt 7.95pt" v:shape="_x0000_s1026"> <p style="margin-bottom:13px"> </p> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table></td> </tr></tbody></table><p><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></b></p> <p> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JUDGMENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>                                                  </b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Case no: </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL-2019/02636</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MARTHA SABINA MADISIA                                                                  PLAINTIFF</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">EDGARS STORES NAMIBIA LTD t/a </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:right 467.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JET STORES WALVIS BAY                                                     DEFENDANT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-108.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-116.75pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Neutral citation:       </span></span></span></b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Madisia v Edgars Stores Namibia t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(</span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL-2019/02636) [2022] NAHCMD 488 (16 September 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-108.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                  SIBEYA J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:                    30 - 31 March 2021; 01 April; 20-24 September 2021</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Order</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:                    12 April 2022                    </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Reasons:               16 September 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Flynote:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">       Delict – Action for damages – Based on bodily injuries, pain and suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, loss of amenities of life, hospital and medical expenses and future hospital, medical expenses – Claim arising from an alleged fall on a wet floor in Jet Stores – Plaintiff is alleged to have sustained injuries to her hip, knee and her shoulder – </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach to </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">mutually destructive versions restated – The repetition of an allegation does not make it true – Court found that the plaintiff’s evidence is improbable and false – Court found that it was not proven on a balance of probabilities that plaintiff fell in Jet Stores and sustained the injuries complained of as a result – Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Summary</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">:    The plaintiff claims in her particulars of claim that on 17 June 2016, while shopping in Jet Stores, Walvis Bay, she slipped and fell on a wet floor which resulted in injuries sustained to her hip, knee and shoulder. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries, more particularly pain, suffering and discomfort, emotional shock and trauma.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The defendant, in its plea, denied that the floor of the store was wet on 17 June 2016, and further denied that the plaintiff slipped and fell in its store on the said date or any other date. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had known injuries or medical conditions regarding her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016. It pleaded further that the plaintiff also had degenerative changes regarding her hips, femur and acetabulum.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, it is the duty of owners or other person or entity that controls a store to ensure that such store is safe for use by members of the public, however, in order for the defendant to be held liable for the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff there must be a causal link between the fall and the cause of damages.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, repeating an allegation to different persons several times does not elevate such allegation by any degree nor does it necessarily make such an allegation true.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held further that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the evidence of Dr Tietz who undisputedly assisted with over 500 orthopaedic surgeries and is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions supported the finding by Dr Moolman that the medical condition of the plaintiff resulted from degeneration of the joints related to age. The court accepted the opinions of Dr Moolman and Dr Tietz that the medical condition of the plaintiff was due to the degenerative condition related to age and not the alleged fall.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held further that</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">, the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a wet floor in Jet Stores on 17 June 2016 and that she fell and sustained injuries as a result, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div style="border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">ORDER </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="_Hlk102334827" id="_Hlk102334827"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs, such costs include costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. </span></span></a></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The matter is regarded as finalised and removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div style="border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p align="center" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:center; text-indent:-72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">JUDGMENT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0cm"> </p> </div> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SIBEYA J:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Introduction</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">This court is seized with a claim that the plaintiff fell on a wet floor in Jet Stores, Walvis Bay which resulted in injuries sustained to her hip, knee and shoulder.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> On the bases of the said injuries, plaintiff claims damages for pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, loss of amenities of life, hospital and medical expenses and future hospital and medical expenses. The claim is defended. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The parties and their representation</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff is Ms Martha Sabina Madisia, an adult Namibian female pensioner, and a resident of Walvis Bay, Namibia.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant is Edgars Stores Namibia LTD t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay, a company registered in terms of the applicable laws of the Republic of Namibia, with its registered address situated at LA Chambers, Dr Agostinho Neto Road, Windhoek Namibia. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Where reference is made to the plaintiff and the defendant jointly, they shall be referred to as the parties.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff is represented by Ms R Mondo while the defendant is represented by Ms L Ihalwa.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The pleadings</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff alleges, in her particulars of claim, that on 17 June 2016, while shopping in Jet Stores situated in Walvis Bay, she slipped and fell on a wet floor. She sustained bodily injuries to her left hip and knee as a result of the fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the negligence of the defendant or its employees whilst they were acting in the course and scope of their employment, by failing to:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Take reasonable steps to ensure that the floor is safe to the members of the public;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Secure the area that was wet;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Warn the public of the danger of the wet floor;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ensure that the floor was free of water or slippery fluids.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="8"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff further claims that the defendant or its employees owed a legal duty to the public to secure its floors and warn the public of the dangers of the wet floors. The defendant or its employees further knew or ought to have known that by failing to ensure that the floors were properly maintained and inspected, and that the wet floor was closed off and secured, the wet floors posed a danger to the public and the plaintiff in particular. The defendant or its employees’ failure to secure the wet floor constitutes a breach of their legal duty. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="9"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">As a result of the fall, the plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries, more particularly she experienced pain, suffering and discomfort, emotional shock and trauma. She required hospital and medical treatment. She further claims to suffer from limited but permanent general disability. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="10"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">As a result of the injuries, plaintiff claims that she suffered and continue to suffer from the following damages:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional shock and trauma, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life in the amount of N$500 000;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Hospital, medical and related expenses in the amount of N$4 927.99; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Future hospital, medical and related expenses estimated at N$300 000.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </span></span></span></p> <ol start="11"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant, in its plea, denied that the floors of its store were wet on 17 June 2016 and further denied that the plaintiff slipped and fell in its store on the said date or any other date. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had known injuries or medical conditions regarding her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016. It pleaded further that the plaintiff also had degenerative changes regarding her hips, femur and acetabulum. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="12"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant further pleaded that it has standard company policies in place regarding wet floors whereby its employees take reasonable steps to safeguard the public who are visiting the store. The defendant pleaded that its employees take the following measures;</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Carry out regular store floor inspections;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Upon noticing a wet floor, the employee remains at such place until such time that it is secured and cleaned;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">They place luminous warning signs at such place and customers are warned either by signs or verbal or both; </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">They immediately clean the place.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[13]    The defendant further denied breaching any legal duty that it owes to the public or the plaintiff. The defendant ultimately denied liability for the plaintiff’s claim and also denied the damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The pre-trial order</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[14]    This court in <i>Mbaile v Shiindi</i><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> emphasised the importance of listing issues in dispute between the parties, and remarked as follows in para [10]:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">            ‘The stage of the pre-trial hearing is arguably the most crucial procedural step leading to the trial. It requires of the parties or their legal representatives to analyse the pleadings and documents filed of record with an eagle eye and in order to unambiguously lay the factual issues in dispute before court. Inevitably, at this stage, the pleadings would have been closed and discovery occurred.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a> The parties are therefore duty bound to strip the pleadings and documents filed of record to their bare bones in order to identify the real issues for resolution by the court. Parties should further be mindful that they are bound to the issues which they bring to court for determination. It is not the responsibility of the court to navigate through various issues raised for determination in order to pinpoint what is relevant, but that of the parties to bring forth their disputes and point out the issues for determination from their dispute.’   </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[15]    It is vital for the parties to carry out their duties in order to limit the dispute to the real issues and not list every conceivable question and list it as a matter to be determined by the court. It is not the duty of the court to peruse through the pleadings and documents filed including witness statements in order to identify conceivable disputes of fact or law between the parties. This duty commences and rests with the parties. Similarly, it is the duty of the parties to also list issues that are not in dispute or common-cause between them. This will inevitably avoid sending the court into a wild goose chase for fact-finding on issues that are common-cause between the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    In <i>casu,</i> the parties filed their proposed pre-trial report dated 30 October 2020 which was adopted and made an order of court on 5 November 2020. They listed twenty issues of fact and eleven issues of law to be resolved at trial which brings the total number of issues for determination to thirty-one. As for issues which are common-cause between them, the parties only mentioned their citations and location of Jet Stores Walvis Bay as at the date of the alleged incident. The pre-trial report, in this matter, leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    Parties must be meticulous, and limit issues for determination to what is material and not list every wishful question for determination. The pre-trial report, as such report forms the basis of the trial, demands legal analysis of the issues so as not to waste the court’s time while simultaneously ensuring that the real disputes between the parties are clearly identified for determination and further that common-cause facts are set out.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    In summary, the issues of fact listed by the parties for determination are the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff visited the defendant’s store situated at the corner of 9<sup>th</sup> and 11<sup>th</sup> Avenue in Walvis Bay and fell in the store due to a wet floor and as a result of which she sustained injuries;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">If established that the floor was wet, whether or not the defendant’s employees took reasonable steps to secure the wet floor and whether or not they warned the public of the dangers of the wet floor;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff sustained injuries and experienced pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional shock, trauma and limited permanent disability as a result of the fall;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff required hospital and medical care and treatment and whether she will require future hospital and medical care and treatment;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The costs of actual hospital and medical care and treatment and future related costs;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the plaintiff have pre-existing injuries or medical conditions in respect of her knees, hips and joints pre-dating 17 June 2016 and effect thereof on her claim;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the defendant has the relevant policies regarding wet floors.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]    The following summarized relevant issues of law for determination were listed by the parties:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the defendant owed a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the floor of the store was safe for use by the public;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether or not the defendant breached such duty and whether such breach was out of negligence or not;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:31px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered the damages claimed, and the quantum.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[20]    It is now opportune to consider the evidence led by the parties in order to determine whether the plaintiff proved her claim or not. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]     </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff took to the stand and testified in an attempt to prove her claim. She also led the evidence of Ms Priscilla Plaatjies, Dr Masimba Jinguri, Dr Cobus Moolman, Ms Cathy Kaabo, Dr Marius Johannes Steytler. The defendant on the other hand led the evidence of Ms Patricia Groenewald, Ms Laimi Kashopola, Ms Juliana Yvonne Olivier and Dr Wolfang Helmut Tietz.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Plaintiff’s evidence</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    The plaintiff testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that: On Friday, 17 June 2016 at around 11:00, she went to Jet Stores, Walvis Bay for shopping. It was her testimony further that whilst in the store at the kitchen section, she slipped and fell on the wet floor. She landed on the left side of her body, dropped the items from her hands and screamed. Her dress was wet. She looked up and noticed water dripping from the ceiling, so she testified. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> [23]   The plaintiff further testified that five ladies who worked for the defendant stood by while two of them assisted her. One of the ladies that assisted her was Ms Ms Priscilla Plaatjies. Another lady from the five picked up the items which she dropped from her hands. She was in shock, so she testified. She informed a certain employee Kelly in the store that she fell but Kelly did not respond. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    The plaintiff testified that she went to the till where Ms Laimi Kashopola was the cashier and paid for the items. Ms Kashopola informed her that she saw her fall. The plaintiff further testified that Ms Kashopola inquired from her if she injured herself when she fell, where she responded that she was fine as she felt no pain. She testified further that she then paid for items and left the store. She went home and did not really feel pain, resultantly, she did not think that she could be seriously injured. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    The plaintiff testified further that on Sunday morning, 19 June 2016, while preparing to go to church, she realised that her skin turned blue and was reddish in colour on the side where she fell. She felt pain in her hip and her knee was swollen. After church she spent the day in bed due to the pain.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    The plaintiff testified that on Monday, 20 June 2016, she approached the manager at the store, Ms Patricia Groenewald for financial assistance in order to seek medical help. According to the plaintiff, Ms Groenewald informed her that she was aware of the incident whereby the plaintiff fell in the store but further Ms Groenewald said nobody saw her falling and declined the plaintiff’s request for financial assistance.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    The plaintiff testified further that she proceeded to Dr Jinguri (her family doctor), and complained of pain and she was prescribed pain killers. Three days later she returned to Jet Stores with Ms Priscilla Plaatjies and approached Ms Groenewald and asked for financial assistance to pay for medical treatment. Ms Gronewald called some of the staff members and inquired if they saw the plaintiff fall. Some confirmed while others did not, so the plaintiff testified. Ms Groenewald then requested one of the employees to provide relief spray and cotton wool from the shelf to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further testified that she informed Ms Groenewald that if she could check the CCTV cameras she will observe the plaintiff falling but Ms Groenewald said that the CCTV cameras did not record the plaintiff’s incident.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    The plaintiff testified that her pain worsened with time and her mobility was impaired. The pain in the hip escalated to a point where she had to hold on to something to make her way around. On the advice of Dr Jinguri, she obtained crutches from the hospital. The crutches also caused her pain in the left shoulder. She sought medical assistance in November 2017, February and July 2018. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]    The plaintiff testified further that she consulted the Ombudsman about her case who then advised her to obtain two witnesses to support her version of the fall. She approached Ms Plaatjies who agreed to be her witness. She also consulted Mr Allister Beukes who was employed at Jet Stores. The plaintiff said Mr Beukes remembered that she fell in Jet Stores. I should hasten to state that Mr Beukes was not called to testify in this matter and as such what he is alleged to have said constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]    The plaintiff testified further that she contacted Ms Kashopola, an employee at Jet Stores and inquired if she knew about her fall. Ms Kashopola allegedly informed the plaintiff that she was advised not to discuss the fall without first obtaining permission to do so and she feared that she could lose her job. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    Plaintiff testified further that she consulted Dr Moolman who advised her that she will require three operations on the shoulder, hip and the knee. Dr Moolman advised her that the costs for the operation will be about N$350 000. As a result of the fall, her movements were impaired and thus affecting her life. She suffers from constant pain and has to resort to taking pain killers all the time.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    She testified that she fell as a result of the negligence of the defendant and or its employees who failed to warn the general public of the wet floor. The defendant and its employees further failed to ensure that the floor was not slippery and free of water.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    In cross-examination, she was questioned by Ms Ihalwa that she was quite about experiencing pain on Saturday, 18 June 2016, where she answered that she did not experience serious pain. The plaintiff was further questioned about the pain in the shoulder as the particulars of claim only refers to the pain in her knee and hip. The plaintiff said that she also had pain in her shoulder. It further emerged in cross-examination that later, in November 2017, the plaintiff complained of foot and ankle pain which affected her mobility and this was isolated from the alleged fall. She complained of chronic painful left knee and right ankle. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    The plaintiff testified when questioned in cross-examination, that her foot was operated by Dr Steytler before the alleged fall in Jet Stores which culminated in the plaintiff instituting action against Dr Steytler. The plaintiff said that she never informed Dr Jinguri about the operation (surgery) carried out by Dr Steytler. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    It was put to the plaintiff in cross-examination that in his report, Dr Jinguri stated that the pain to her hip might be age related and that she may have twisted her knee and further that her alleged fall (reported to him by the plaintiff) might aggravate the pre-existing joint pathological pain. To this, the plaintiff said that Dr Jinguri informed her so, despite the fact that she never told Dr Jinguri of her pre-existing pain. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[36]    The plaintiff was further questioned by Ms Ihalwa that when she was examined by Dr Tietz, she was asked about the extent of the pain she was experiencing in her knee and requested to measure the pain on a scale of 0 to 10. She said 10 out of 10. Dr Tietz disagreed.<b> </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[37]    The plaintiff testified that she did not inform Dr Tietz of the operation to her toes conducted by Dr Steytler. When asked for reason of not disclosing the operation to Dr Tietz, the plaintiff said that she forgot about it. Dr Tietz noticed that the plaintiff was operated, he questioned her about it and she confirmed. Dr Tietz said that the plaintiff’s knee did not require crutches.   <b> </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[38]    A letter dated 21 August 2009 by Dr Steytler was produced into evidence where it is stated that Dr Steytler examined the plaintiff in April 2002 where she complained of pain in her left knee following her fall that year and she was diagnosed with a medial collateral ligament injury. When this version of Dr Steytler was put to the plaintiff, she did not dispute but said that she could no longer remember if she injured her knee in 2002 or not, as a long time has passed. In re-examination the plaintiff confirmed that Dr Steytler examined her in April 2002 regarding the pain in the knee that resulted from her fall that year. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[39]    The plaintiff further testified that the pain escalated on Sunday, 19 June 2016. On Monday, 20 June 2016 while experiencing severe pain, she first went to Jet Store to seek financial assistance for medical help. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[40]    When pressed on the time that she fell in the store, the plaintiff said that it was around 11:00. When questioned further on the version by Ms Plaatjies that she fell in the store just before the store closed, the plaintiff said she could no longer recall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Ms Priscilla Plaatjies </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> [41]   Ms Plaatjies testified that she knows the plaintiff as they live together in Kuisebmund, whom she would see at church and in the street. In 2016, she was employed as a casual worker at Jet Stores, Walvis Bay. She worked at the stores’ warehouse but before the store closes she would carry-out house-keeping which includes packing clothes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[42]    Ms Plaatjies testified that during the weekend on 17 June 2016, it was raining and she was carrying-out housekeeping when the plaintiff entered Jet Store and the store was about to close. She testified that the floor was wet and the plaintiff slipped and fell on the wet floor. She attended to the plaintiff who immediately left the shop. She testified further that there was a bucket on the floor catching water from the leaking roof. There was no sign that the floor was wet neither did any employee inform the public about the wet floor. Ms Plaatjies said that during the time of the alleged incident, she had a grievance with the employer (the defendant) and later she stopped working. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[43]    The plaintiff denied seeing a bucket on the floor close to where she fell. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Masimba Jinguri</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[44]    Dr Jinguri testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he is a general practitioner. The plaintiff is his patient from 2016. He testified that he examined the plaintiff on 20 June 2016, following her report that she fell in a store and found that she had swelling and tenderness of the left knee with bruising. After 20 June 2016, the plaintiff returned to him in 2017 where she complained of pain and swelling in the left knee. X-ray examination conducted between 2017 and 2018 revealed that the plaintiff had mild degenerative changes in the knee with osteophytes. The X-ray conducted on the left side hip revealed that it was irregular and impingement suggesting degenerative changes related to age. He testified that he was not aware of any pre-existing non pathology pain.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[45]    Dr Jinguri referred to the report by Dr A K Pandey an Orthopaedic Surgeon and a Specialist who examined the plaintiff in 2019 and who diagnosed her with post-traumatic left hip osteoarthritis (the disorder of joints characterised by cartilage degeneration in the bones common in older persons and causing pain, morning stiffness and which affects mobility) and left knee collateral ligament rapture and recommended operative interventions.  In cross-examination, Dr Jinguri testified that the medical history of the plaintiff that she fell in 2002 was not brought to his attention by the plaintiff and such information would have been relevant to the examination and diagnosis if the plaintiff. . </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Cobus Moolman  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[46]    Dr Moolman, an Orthopaedic Surgeon testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he examined the plaintiff on 23 July 2019. He examined the X-ray results of 2018 which showed impingement in both hips and the <i>coxa profunda</i> (the hip balls were slightly out of socket as a result of the cartilage being worn out). He found that the plaintiff has osteoarthritis on the left hip and the left knee and suspected degenerative left shoulder. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[47]    Dr Moolman testified further that the plaintiff informed him that she fell in a storein 2016 and wanted to hold another party liable for the fall. She wanted him to state in the report that her medical condition was due to the fall in the store in 2016 but he declined. He testified that the plaintiff’s medical condition is commonly observed in her age group as part of the degenerative process of the joints. She was then 62 years old. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[48]    Dr Moolman testified further that he could not find any features that would specifically link the plaintiff’s condition to the alleged fall of 2016. Dr Moolman provided a quotation for a hip replacement because the plaintiff requested for it but not that she needed it. It was his testimony further that surgery would be his last resort and not at an early stage as in this matter. When the plaintiff requested for the quotation she said that the operation costs were to be paid by another party.<b>  </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Cathy Kaambo</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[49]    Ms Kaambo testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that she knows the plaintiff for many years as they grew up together. She testified further that she accompanied the plaintiff to Dr Tietz for medical examination. Ms Kaambo testified that while they were on the way to Dr Tietz’s office the plaintiff tripped and almost fell where after she was put in a wheelchair and the plaintiff arrived at the doctor’s practice in a wheel chair.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[50]    Ms Kaambo further testified that she was present in the consulting room during the examination of the plaintiff by Dr Tietz. The plaintiff informed Dr Tietz that Dr Pandey said that she must be operated and Dr Tietz said he does not see the need for surgery. In the witness statement, Ms Kaambo stated that when she arrived with the plaintiff at Dr Tietz’s office, he greeted them and told Ms Kaambo to leave the office as he wanted to examine the plaintiff. Ms Kaambo left the office as a result and was later just informed by the plaintiff of what transpired between the plaintiff and Dr Tietz. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Maruis Johannes Steytler</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[51]    Dr Steytler, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he consulted the plaintiff from November 1998. In 1998 the plaintiff complained of pain in her right hip. A Computed Tomography (CT scan), which can show detailed images of the scanned body part, was carried out which revealed that she required no operation. He examined the plaintiff again in April 2002 where she complained of pain in her left knee after she fell in the same year. The plaintiff consulted him again in June 2005 where she complained of a painful right little toe and knob on the big toe. She was treated with surgery on the little toe and the knob on the big toe was removed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[52]    The plaintiff consulted him again in March and December 2006, with a complaint of pain in the ankle. In March 2008 she consulted him again and complained of pain in the right ankle. He operated on her on 13 March 2008. On 3 November 2008 she consulted him again and she had clawing of the fourth and fifth toes of the left foot which were stiff. She had instability due to clawed toes which were operated on. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Defendants’ evidence</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Patricia Groenewald</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[53]    Ms Groenewald testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that she was a Store Manager at Jet Stores Walvis Bay since August 2010 until August 2020 when the store was closed. Her duties included store and staff management, ceiling inspection to ensure that thieves do not hide in the ceiling and ensure security at the front door. The building of the store did not belong to the defendant and was occupied on lease. If anything on the building (including the lights, ceiling, tiles) was found to be broken it would be reported to the landlord to be fixed or replaced.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[54]    She testified further that in the event of a wet floor in the store while cleaning, the staff members would put a red corn as a warning sign.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[55]    She testified that on 16 June 2016 she was at work stationed at the office inside the store. As per normal practice she attended to regular rounds through the store. She testified that she did not witness the alleged fall of the plaintiff nor did any customer, staff member or any person inform her of the alleged fall of the plaintiff. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[56]    Ms Groenewald testified further that the plaintiff, unaccompanied by anybody, only approached her on Monday, 20 June 2016 where the plaintiff informed her that she fell in the store on Friday, 17 June 2016. Her words were: “Party, are you aware that I fell in the store. Can we see the CCTC footage?” The plaintiff had no bandages or a kierie with her. When she questioned the plaintiff for the reason why she did not report the incident on the same day, the plaintiff answered that she did not feel well and she wanted to go to church. The plaintiff further said that she thought that there were CCTV cameras or footage that recorded her fall. Ms Groenewald informed the plaintiff that there were no CCTV cameras at the side of the store where she alleged to have fallen. The CCTV cameras were installed at the entrance, service centre and the backdoor and at the cash office. At one stage Ms Groenewald said that the plaintiff did not request for the CCTV footage. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[57]    Ms Groenewald further testified that the plaintiff asked her for assistance but she declined the request as she was duty bound to report the claim and the required processes to the store Regional Manager within 24 hours of the incident or injury. Ms Groenewald denied the allegation that she provided the plaintiff with relief spray and cotton wool and said further that the store did not stock pain relief sprays.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[58]    She testified further that she knew the plaintiff who was a regular customer at the store for about 10 years. She would see her and they would have casual conversations from time to time. The plaintiff always had bandages on her legs or walked with assistance of a kierie.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[59]    During cross-examination, Ms Mondo put it to Ms Groenewald that the ceiling in the store was leaking. Ms Groenewald denied such statement and said further that there were no water pipes at the side of the store where the incident is alleged to have occurred and the roof is made out of concrete and therefore disputed the assertion that the ceiling was leaking.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[60]    Ms Mondo further put a follow up statement to Ms Groenewald that it was raining on that specific day. To this, Ms Groenewald stated that she could not recall that on Friday, 17 June 2016 it was raining and she said further that she was born and raised in Walvis Bay and <u>during the month of June it is usually hot without rain</u>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[61]    Ms Groenewald testified further that in October 2018, she became aware of the plaintiff’s efforts to persuade staff members to testify on the plaintiff’s behalf for a claim resulting from her alleged fall in the shop. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[62]    Ms Groenewald further testified that Ms Priscilla Plaatjies is a former casual employee of the defendant who was appointed as a Casual Stock Counter on 27 May 2016 but commenced employment on 11 June 2016.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> She testified further that Ms Plaatjies worked at the back of the store and had no direct contact with customers. Ms Plaatjies was still new and was being trained for weeks before she could work directly with customers. Ms Plaatjies was only allowed to work in the store where customers have access, when she had to attend to housekeeping (packing up or folding clothes and tidying the displays) and this was only after all the customers have left the store and just before closing time. The store opened at 08h30 and housekeeping time was usually from 16h45 to 17h30. Before 16h45, Ms Plaatjies never worked on the floor where the customers had access.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[63]    Ms Plaatjies had a labour dispute with the defendant regarding a salary for two weeks and reported this to the Office of the Labour Commissioner.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Laimi Kashopola</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[64]    Ms Kashopola testified that in 2016, she was employed by the defendant as a cellular phone repair specialist. She was telephoned by the plaintiff during November 2018 and asked if she remembered that the plaintiff fell in Jet Store Walvis Bay. This was the first time that she learnt about the alleged fall of the plaintiff and she responded to the plaintiff that she was at work and will phone her back later. She did not return her call. She testified that she did not witness the alleged fall by the plaintiff. She denied the allegations that she informed the plaintiff that she saw her fall in the store and that the plaintiff could have injured herself. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[65]    In cross-examination, Ms Kashopola was asked by Ms Mondo as to what actions do the employees take when there is a leakage in the roof. She responded that they would put a sign in order to alert the customers of the wet floor and they would notify the landlord of such leakage. She testified that on Friday, 17 June 2016, she was a permanent employee on duty and knows that the ceiling was not leaking and there was no wet floor in the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Juliana Yvonne Olivier</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[66]    Ms Olivier testified that she is a nurse employed at the WH Tietz Medical Practice in Swakopmund. She testified further that she was present when the plaintiff was examined by Dr Tietz on 3 July 2020. It was her testimony that on the said day, the plaintiff entered the consulting room by herself using a crutch. Dr Tietz physically examined the plaintiff regarding her complaints and alleged injuries while Ms Olivier stood by. Dr Tietz touched the plaintiff’s arm, leg and knee during the examination. Ms Olivier testified further that Dr Tietz made no verbal diagnosis.    </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Dr Wolfgan Helmut Tietz</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[67]    Dr Tietz testified, <i>inter alia</i>, that he is a medical practitioner and specialist family physician practicing as such in Swakopmund. He said that on 3 July 2020, he examined the plaintiff on instructions of the defendant’s legal practitioners. The examination was in respect of the alleged fall of the plaintiff in Jet Stores Walvis Bay in June 2016. At the consulting room on 3 July 2020, the plaintiff sat with her left arm in a sling and had one crutch with her which she took into her left hand after she took her sling off. She also used her left arm to get off the chair. She walked slowly but unassisted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[68]    Dr Tietz testified further that he physically and clinically examined the plaintiff, examined her hip rotation, shoulder bent, knee bent and straightened and the plaintiff executed all the movements.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[69]    Dr Tietz examined the plaintiff in the presence of Ms Olivier. Dr Tietz’s examination to the left shoulder was extremely painful and sensitive to touch and his clinical opinion was early osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint condition) with a rotator cuff syndrome. The examination to the left hip revealed limited internal rotation and his clinical opinion was early osteoarthritis. The examination to the left knee showed bilateral genu valgus (knock knees) left knee more than right knee and both feet had claw toes with early calluses. The clinical opinion was osteoarthritis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[70]    She could tip-toe and heel walk while holding onto the examination couch. There was a clear discrepancy between her alleged experienced pain and her facial or body expressions and movements during examination. When getting off the couch she pressed onto the surface with her left hand. Her body expressions were therefore not commensurate to her alleged pain levels. The plaintiff was further under a misconception that her left clavicle (collar bone) was fractured but this the X-ray showed degenerative <i>acromio-clavicular</i> junction (the joint that connects the shoulder blade to the collar bone) and not a fracture. During the examination the plaintiff was requested to state her level of pain experienced at that time out of 10 and she said 10 of out of 10, but this was not commensurate to the observation made by Dr Tietz. She did not demonstrate that she was experiencing excruciating pain. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[71]    After investigating the plaintiff’s history, consultations, special investigations, her age (63 years old), Dr Tietz agreed with the statement made by Dr Moolman on 23 July 2019 that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘… her condition is commonly seen in her age group as part of the degenerative process of joints. I could not find any features that would specifically link her condition to the alleged incident</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">.’</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[72]    Dr Tietz emphasised in his testimony that he could not find concrete medical evidence which confirms that the plaintiff’s condition resulted from a fall in the store as she alleged. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[73]    Dr Tietz expressed reservations regarding the validity of the diagnosis made by Dr Pandey on 10 July 2018 and 23 January 2019, that the plaintiff was diagnosed with left hip joint post-traumatic osteoarthritis and left knee joint post-traumatic<b> </b>lateral collateral ligament rupture as Dr Pandey ordered X-rays. The X-rays do not show any trauma or injuries. The X-rays also cannot show the knee ligament rapture as ligaments are soft tissues which are not visible on the X-rays and that is why the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (the MRI) was requested. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[74]    Osteophytes are little growth which develops between the joints.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[75]    In respect of <i>Coxa profundus</i> in the left knee, Dr Tietz testified that it occurs when the cup of the joint (hip) is deep into the hip socket thus causing the hip not to move normally and causes early joint pain and limited movement in the joints. In this scenario early</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">osteoarthritis is expected.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Dr Tietz concluded that any person with</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">osteoarthritis can benefit from hip replacement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[76]    Dr Tietz explained that primary osteoarthritis occurs where there is no direct cause. This is caused by age, overweight, excessive alcohol intake, lack of exercise, diabetes, etc. Secondary osteoarthritis requires a definitive cause e.g. joint infection, gout, etc. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[77]    Dr Tietz testified that when one falls to the ground on his or her left side and is injured the impact of the injury, will be experienced on the particular part of the body or joint which hit the ground. If the body part that hits a hard surface is a person’s hip, the knee and the shoulder will not be affected. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[78]    Dr Tietz further testified regarding the report compiled by Dr Junguri of 13 July 2018.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Dr Tietz said that Dr Jinguri stated in his report that X-rays were conducted on the plaintiff which showed mild degenerative changes in the knee with osteophytes. Dr Jinguri further said in the report that there was laxity in joints which was suggestive of a possible tear of lateral ligaments hence the MRI scan was requested. X-rays of the hip showed degenerative changes which are age related. It was the testimony of Dr Tietz that the conclusion by Dr Jinguri reached that the possible fall of the plaintiff, might aggravate a pre-existing joint pathology pain contradicts his earlier finding of degenerative changes. Dr Tietz testified further that for trauma to cause secondary</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">osteoarthritis the force must be extensive than just falling. The impact on the ground and the weight of the person may also play a role. The said trauma must cause a fracture and result in immediate impact like limping.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[79]    Dr Tietz further questioned the plaintiff for the reason why she did not inform him about the operation carried out Dr Steyter, which Dr Tietz only noticed during the examination, the plaintiff said “oooh I forgot”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[80]    During cross-examination, Dr Tietz conceded that he is not an orthopaedic surgeon (a surgeon specialising in injuries of the musculoskeletal system including bones). He, however, said that he has assisted orthopaedic surgeons during surgeries since 2008 and have so far assisted in over 500 surgeries. He said that he is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions and would only refer to orthopaedic surgeon for chronic or exacerbated cases. When questioned whether pain in the knee and the hip was associated with the fall, Dr Tietz testified that there was no radiology evidence to support the claim for the injury, and furthermore, pain cannot be observed but an inflammation can be seen. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Brief submissions by counsel</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[81]    Ms Mondo argued that the plaintiff walked properly without assistance on 17 June 2016 when she fell on a wet floor in the defendant’s store. Ms Mondo further argued that the plaintiff approached the defendant’s employees to tell them about her fall, she requested for the CCTV footage, she approached the Ombudsman for assistance, she telephoned employees of the defendant and asked them to confirm that she fell in the defendant’s store and this insistence, according to Ms Mondo, is not common unless if the plaintiff indeed fell in the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[82]    Ms Mondo further argued that the version of the plaintiff was confirmed by Ms Plaatjies who testified that “Ms Madisia was at the store that Saturday. As she was walking, she slipped and fell on the floor, the floor was wet.” It was Ms Plaaitjies evidence that the fall occurred over the weekend. Ms Mondo further argued that neither Ms Groenewald nor Ms Kashopola could observe the plaintiff fall as they were not at the area where the plaintiff allegedly fell. Ms Mondo further urged the court to draw a negative inference against the defendant for failure to lead the evidence of Mr Allister Beukes. It was the defendants’ case that when MR beukes was consulted he was under the influence of alcohol, this court therefore draws no adverse inference against the defendant for failure to call Mr Beukes.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[83]    Ms Ihalwa counter argued contrariwise that Ms Groenewald was clear that as a store manager she would go through the sales floor in order to ensure that the store is 100% safe for customers before it is opened and if there was a leak or a wet floor she would have seen it during her rounds. Ms Ihalwa further argued that Ms Groenewald stated that the ceiling of the store was made out of concrete and that Ms Plaatjies who was a casual worker remained and worked at the store room until such time that the store closed and there were no customers, when she would come to the sales section of the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[84]    It was further argued by Ms Ihalwa that both Ms Groenewald and Ms Kashopola testified clearly that whenever there was a wet floor from cleaning a warning sign to that effect would be put on the floor to warn the public. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[85]    Ms Ihalwa argued that the plaintiff is unreliable as she testified that she entered the store at around 11:00 and when questioned about Ms Plaatjies’ version that she was in store when the store was about to close, the plaintiff changed her version and said that she could not remember the time that she entered the store. Ms Plaatjies was not allowed in the store while there were customers and therefor, argued Ms Ihalwa, she could not witness the fall. Ms Ihalwa called for the plaintiff’s claim to be dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Burden of proof</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[86]    It is settled law that the plaintiff bears the burden to prove her claim on a balance of probabilities. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[87]    For the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the defendant, the following test as described by Holmes JA in <i>Kruger v Coetzee<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> must be proven:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘For the purposes of liability <i>culpa</i> arises if- </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">a <i>diligens paterfamilias</i> in the position of the defendant- </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">(i)would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">(ii) would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and (b) the defendant failed to take such steps.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">This has been constantly stated by this Court for some 50 years. Requirement (a) (ii) is sometimes overlooked. Whether a <i>diligens paterfamilias</i> in the position of the person concerned would take any guarding steps at all and, if so, what steps would be reasonable, must always depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. No hard and fast basis can be laid down. Hence the futility, in general, of seeking guidance from the facts and results of other cases.’</span>    </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[88]    The parties were <i>ad idem</i>, and correctly so, on the duty that befalls storeowners or persons in control of shops. It is the duty of owners or other person or entity that controls a store to ensure that such store is safe for use by members of the public. In <i>Probst v Pick n Pay Retailers</i>,<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the court remarked as follows regarding a duty owed by storeowners:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">‘As a matter of law, the defendants [the supermarkets] owed a duty to persons entering their store at Southgate during trading hours, to take reasonable steps to ensure that, at all times during trading hours, the floor was kept in a condition that was reasonably safe for shoppers, bearing in mind that they would spend much of their time in the store with their attention focused on goods displayed on the shelves, or on their trolleys, and not looking at the floor to ensure that every step they took was safe.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[89]    The court in the <i>Probst </i>case proceeded to state that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">            ‘The duty on the keepers of a supermarket to take reasonable steps is not so onerous as to require that every spillage must be discovered and cleaned up as soon as it occurs. Nevertheless, it does require a system that will ensure that spillages are not allowed to create potential hazards for any material length of time, and that they will be discovered, and the floor made safe, with reasonable promptitude.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[90]    In order for the defendant to be held liable for the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff there must be a causal link between the fall and the cause of damages. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Analysis</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[91]    At the outset of the consideration of the evidence led, I consider it prudent to address some of the questions raised for determination by the parties. The allegations that the plaintiff entered Jet store and fell in the store as a result of the wet floor and that the plaintiff consequently suffered injuries should, in my view, be determined first before other questions raised by the parties are resorted to.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[92]    It was established that the plaintiff was a regular customer at Jet Stores and it was not in dispute that the plaintiff entered Jet Store on Friday, 17 June 2016. What is heavily disputed by the defendant are the allegations that there was a wet floor in the store and that the plaintiff fell in the store on 17 June 2016, where she sustained injuries. The versions presented by the plaintiff and the defendant are miles apart and mutually destructive in respect of the wet floor, the fall, and the injuries sustained.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Mutually destructive versions </span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[93]    The plaintiff testified that on Friday, 17 June 2016, at around 11:00 in the morning she entered Jet Stores for shopping and while in the store she slipped and fell due to a wet floor. She looked up and noticed a hole in the ceiling where water was leaking. The alleged fall signifies the genesis and the foundation on which the injuries sustained emanates from. Ms Plaatjies supported the version of the plaintiff that she observed the plaintiff fall and assisted to pick her up but this was just before the store closed. The store closed around 17:30. Ms Groenewald and Ms Kashopola testified to the contrary that there was no wet floor in the store on 17 June 2016 and the plaintiff did not fall in the store. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[94]    The aforesaid versions<i>, inter alia</i>, constitute mutually destructive evidence. They are versions incapable of co-existing.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[95]    The approach to mutually destructive versions was set out in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in </span></span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">SFW Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others, </span></span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">where the court remarked that:<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref9"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[9]</span></span></span></span></sup></sup></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">          ‘</span></span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The technique generally employed by our courts in resolving factual disputes of this nature may conveniently be summarised as follows. To come to a conclusion on the disputed issues, a court must make findings on (a) the credibility of the various factual witnesses; (b) their reliability; and (c) the probabilities. As to (a), the court’s finding on the credibility of a particular witness will depend on its impression about the veracity of the witness. That, in turn, will depend on a variety of subsidiary factors, not necessarily in order of importance, such as (i) the witness’ candour and demeanour; (ii) his bias, latent and blatant; (iii) internal contradictions in his evidence; (iv) external contradictions with what was pleaded or what was put on his behalf, or with established fact and his with his own extra-curial statements or actions; (v) the probability or improbability of particular aspects of his version; (vi) the calibre and cogency of his performance compared to that of other witnesses testifying about the same incident or events. . .’  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#242121">[96]    The above passage, therefore, provides that where the probabilities do not resolve the matter, the court can resort to the credibility of witnesses in order to find in favour of the one or the other </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">party. A consideration of the candour and demeanour of witnesses, self-contradiction or contradiction with the evidence of other witnesses who are supposed to present the same version of events must be assessed.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[97]    In <i>National Employers’ General Insurance v Jagers</i>,<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref10"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a> Eksteen AJP said the following while discussing the approach to mutually destructive evidence: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">            ‘In a civil case … where the onus rests on the plaintiff as in the present case, and where there are two mutually destructive stories, he can only succeed if he satisfies the Court on a preponderance of probability that his version is true and accurate and therefore acceptable, and that the other version advanced by the defendant is therefore false or mistaken and falls to be rejected.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[98]    Guided by the above, I consider, hereunder, the evidence led and submissions made.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Analysis of evidence and submissions</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The alleged fall</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[99]    The plaintiff’s evidence was that on Friday, 17 June 2016, she entered Jet Store, Walvis Bay at around 11:00 for shopping. Ms Plaatjies, on the other hand, testified that it was during the weekend on 17 June 2016, when the store was about to close that the plaintiff entered Jet Stores. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was a regular customer at Jet Stores, Walvis Bay. The plaintiff’s evidence that she entered Jet Store on 17 June 2016, is not disputed by the defendant. 17 June 2016 was a Friday.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[100]   The evidence established that the closing time for Jet Stores was 17:30. Ms Plaatjies testified that the plaintiff entered the store when such store was about to close, which is irreconcilable with the time of 11:00 that the plaintiff claims to have entered the store. Confronted with this different time, the plaintiff said that she could not clearly recall the time that she entered the store given that a long time had passed from 17 June 2016, to the time that she testified. Her witness statement recorded in June 2021, which was received to form part of evidence reveals that she said that she entered Jet Stores on 17June 2016 at around 11:00.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[101]   It was plaintiff’s evidence that when she was in the store she collected items to be paid for, and while at the kitchen side she slipped and fell on the wet floor. She landed on the left side of her body, dropped the items from her hands and screamed. She looked up and saw water dripping from the ceiling. Five employees of the defendant looked on while two assisted her. She informed a certain Kelly (one of the employees) that she fell. Kelly did not testify. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[102]   The plaintiff’s version about the fall was corroborated by Ms Plaatjies who stated that the plaintiff slipped and fell on the wet floor. She attended to the plaintiff who immediately left the shop. This is contrary to the testimony of the plaintiff who said that when she stood up from where she fell in the store she went to the cashier, Ms Kashopola, and paid for the items in her hand, not that she immediately left the store.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[103]   Of great importance, given the significant role that it is alleged to have played, is the bucket used to fetch water that was observed close to where the plaintiff fell by Ms Plaatjies. Crucial as it is because it confirms the version of the plaintiff that indeed the roof or ceiling was leaking and further that there was a wet floor and there was even a bucket to catch water, the plaintiff denied observing a bucket on the floor where she allegedly fell. Ms Plaatjies also noticed a bucket used to fetch water. This, in my view, is a serious discrepancy in the evidence of the plaintiff and Ms Plaatjies. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[104]   Both the plaintiff and Ms Plaatjies said that there was no warning sign of the wet floor to members of the public. It was the testimony of Ms Groenewald and Ms Kashopola that whenever the floor was wet, warning signs would be displayed in order to caution the members of the public about the wet floor and the defendant had policies in place which regulated what should happen when there is a wet floor.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[105]   The plaintiff testified that after she fell, she stood up and went to the till where Ms Kashopola was and paid for the items and Ms Kashopola informed her that she saw her fall and inquired if the plaintiff was not injured. Ms Kashopola, in her testimony, disputed the said version of the plaintiff. According to Ms Kashopola, she learnt about the alleged fall of the plaintiff for the first time when plaintiff telephoned her in November 2018. The reason why the plaintiff telephoned Ms Kashopola was to inquire if she remembered that the plaintiff fell in Jet Stores. Ms Kashopola denied such knowledge and further denied inquiring if the plaintiff was injured or not. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[106]   Ms Mondo took issue with the fact that Ms Kashopola did not state, in her witness statement, that when she was telephoned by the plaintiff she informed her that she did not witness her fall and this only surfaced during her oral evidence. Ms Mondo is correct that, in her witness statement, Ms Kashopola only stated that when the plaintiff telephoned her and inquired if she remembered that the plaintiff fell in Jet Store, she said that she was at work at the time of the phone call and could not talk and that she will call the plaintiff later. She blocked the plaintiff’s number and never returned her call. However, the sentence which forms part of her witness statement that follows immediately after the sentence where she says that she blocked the plaintiff’s number, Ms Kashopola states that: “I repeat that I did not witness the plaintiff’s alleged fall.” </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[107]   The fact that Ms Kashopola stated in her witness statement that she did not witness the alleged fall and in her oral evidence that she informed the plaintiff that she did not witness the alleged fall reveals, in my view, no discrepancies, or at the very least an immaterial discrepancy. The message that comes out of the two statements is that she did not witness the plaintiff’s alleged fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[108]   When she was questioned in cross-examination by Ms Mondo about procedures carried out when there is a leak in the roof, Ms Kashopola testified that the employees would put a sign to alert the customers of the wet floor and they will inform the landlord. Ms Kashopola further denied allegations that the floor was wet on 17 June 2016.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[109]   Ms Kashopola testified in a forthright manner and struck me as a credible witness with nothing to gain from this matter. She was a reliable witness who spoke frankly and was impressive as a witness. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[110]    It was the plaintiff’s evidence that she only approached Ms Groenewald on Monday, 20 June 2016, for financial assistance to seek medical care. Plaintiff said that Ms Groenewald informed her that she knew that the plaintiff fell in the store. Ms Groenewald then, plaintiff said, called staff members and inquired if they observed the plaintiff fall, some confirmed while others did not. Ms Groenewald, who no longer works for Jet Stores from August 2020, following the closure of the store testified that she did not observe the plaintiff fall nor did any person inform her of such alleged fall.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[111]   Ms Groenewald testified that on 20 June 2016, the plaintiff inquired if she was aware that the plaintiff fell in the store on 17 June 2016, which alleged event she had no knowledge of. Ms Groenewald further denied being informed by other employees that the plaintiff fell in the store. Contrary to the version of the plaintiff that Ms Groenewald provided her with a relief spray and cotton wool from the shelf, Ms Groenewald testified that the plaintiff only asked for financial assistance which Ms Groenewald declined as she was required to notify the Regional Manager within 24 hours of the incident. Ms Groenewald denied providing the plaintiff with a relief spray and cotton wool from the shelf as the store did not even stock relief sprays. This evidence of Ms Groenewald that the store did not even stock relief sprays was not disputed. I could not find any reason or motive for Ms Groenewald to fabricate her evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[112]   It was during the cross-examination that Ms Mondo put to Ms Groenewald that the ceiling was leaking. Ms Groenewald denied the allegation and said that there were no water pipes at the side of the store where the alleged incident was said to have occurred and the roof is made out of concrete. This testimony by Ms Groenewald was elicited by Ms Mondo and it remained unchallenged. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[113]   Ms Mondo further put it to Ms Groenewald that on the date of the alleged incident it was raining. This suggestion was dispelled by Ms Groenewald who said that although she could not recall if it was raining on 17 June 2016, it could not have rained as she was born and raised in Walvis Bay and it never rained in June. This answer by Ms Groenewald demonstrated honesty and lack of ulterior motive on the part of Ms Groenewald. Ms Groenewald could easily say that it did not rain on 17 June 2016 but where she could not recall she did not hesitate to say so. This counts towards her credibility. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[114]   In respect of Ms Plaatjies, Ms Groenewald said that she was not allowed in the store when there were customers and she was still new and a casual worker who was assigned at the back of the store. She was only allowed in the store for housekeeping when the customers were gone. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[115]   The plaintiff testified that she approached the Ombudsman in September 2018 about her condition allegedly emanating from the fall and was advised to obtain two witnesses to support her case. The Ombudsman did not testify.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[116]   I find that the plaintiff went all out from inception to try and identify persons who could validate her allegations that she fell in the store. Why the plaintiff did not call some of the five employees who allegedly saw her fall, is a material question that remain unanswered. The plaintiff insisted that Ms Kashopola said that she saw her fall which was denied by Ms Kashopola who was impressive as a witness. To the contrary, the plaintiff performed poorly as a witness, in my view, who appeared hell bend to establish liability on the part of the defendant. This position including the plaintiff going on a fishing expedition to find evidence that can support her claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[117]   Ms Plaatjies, in my view, is not an independent witness, as she knew the plaintiff and they lived together in Kuisebmund, she was not allowed to be in the store during the time that customers were shopping. She observed a bucket close to where the plaintiff fell and which bucket was not observed by the affected person, the plaintiff. It was the testimony of Ms Kashopola and Ms Groenewald that the roof did not leak on 17 June 2016. Coupled with the undisputed evidence that the roof of the store was made out of concrete, that Ms Groenewald conducted routine inspection of the store, the undisputed evidence of Ms Groenewald that in June Walvis Bay is hot with no rain, that whenever there is water on the floor from cleaning, the employees put up warning signs in order to caution members of the public of such wet floor, the evidence points to the reality that it has not been established that there was a wet floor on 17 June 2016 in Jet Stores. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[118]   Dr Jinguri examined the plaintiff on 20 June 2016 and found that she had a swelling and tenderness of the left knee with bruising. According to Dr Jinguri, a general practitioner, the X-ray examination conducted between 2017 and 2018 showed mild degenerative changes to the knee with osteophytes. The plaintiff did not inform Dr Jinguri of her medical history emanating from her fall in 2002 and he was not aware of the plaintiff’s pre-existing non pathological pain. Dr Jinguri relied on the report by Dr Pandey who found post traumatic left hip osteoarthritis and left knee collateral ligament rapture. As stated above, Dr Pandey did not testify. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[119]   Dr Moolman, upon examination of the plaintiff, found that she has osteoarthritis on the left hip and left knee which is commonly part of the degenerative process of the joints in her age group. Dr Moolman said that he could not find features that link her medical condition to the alleged fall. Dr Moolman testified that the plaintiff wanted him to mention in his report that her medical condition was due to the fall in the store in 2016 which request he declined.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[120]   The plaintiff’s insistence that Dr Moolman should write in his report that the injuries emanates from the alleged fall in the store instead of leaving the expert to express his opinion is tantamount to an attempt to influence the opinion of the doctor. This attitude of the plaintiff is, in my view, synonymous with going all out to build a case which can justify her claim, come what may. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[121]   Ms Mondo argued that the persistence of the plaintiff in her claim that she fell in the store, the plaintiff’s report to Ms Groenewald that she fell in the store, her report to the Ombudsman, her report to the doctors are indicative of truthfulness. I disagree. When the truthfulness of the allegation is not established it matters not how many times such allegation is repeated to different persons, it will still remain unproven. A false averment is not elevated to truthfulness by virtue of being repeatedly mentioned to different persons.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[122]   Dr Moolman further testified that the plaintiff informed him that the operation costs were to be paid by another party, hence she requested for a quotation for the surgery, not that surgery was actually necessary. This proves that the plaintiff was gathering records to establish a case and ensure that somebody pays for the surgery, hence she sought to obtain a quotation even when it was not really necessary.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[123]   Dr Tietz, a family physician testified that he examined the plaintiff on 3 July 2020, who sat with her left arm in a sling and had one crutch which she took with her left hand after she removed her sling. When she stood up, she pressed on the couch with her left hand. Dr Tietz found that her physical expression was not commensurate with her alleged pain levels which said was at 10 out of 10. He stated that he could not find concrete medical evidence that the plaintiff’s condition resulted from the fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[124]   Dr Tietz questioned the diagnosis made by Dr Pandey of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the left hip and post-traumatic lateral collateral ligament rapture in the left knee. The X-rays ordered by Dr Pandey do not show any trauma or injuries. Dr Tietz further said that the X-rays cannot show the knee ligament rapture as ligaments are soft tissues which are not visible on the X-rays and requires an MRI scan. Dr Tietz further stated that the conclusion reached by Dr Jinguri that the alleged fall aggravated the pre-existing pathology pain was inconsistent with Dr Jinguri’s earlier finding of degenerative changes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[125]   Dr Tietz testified further that for trauma to cause secondary osteoarthritis the force must be extensive than falling. The trauma must cause a fracture and result in immediate limping. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[126]   The plaintiff did not inform Dr Tietz about the surgery conducted on her by Dr Steytler and when Dr Tiez questioned her about the said surgery, the plaintiff said “oooh I forgot”. How the plaintiff could forget her previous surgery is hard to believe. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[127]   Dr Jinguri’s report placed heavy reliance on the report by Dr Pandey (who did not testify). Dr Jinguri further diagnosed the plaintiff with osteoarthritis while stating that the alleged fall could have aggravated the plaintiff’s medical condition. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[128]   I have no reason to doubt the evidence of Dr Tietz who have undisputedly assisted with over 500 orthopaedic surgeries and is the first point of contact for orthopaedic conditions. Dr Tietz supported the finding by Dr Moolman that the condition of the plaintiff resulted from degeneration of the joints related to age. I, therefore, accept the opinions of Dr Moolman and Dr Tietz that the medical condition of the plaintiff was due to the degenerative condition related to age and not the alleged fall. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Conclusion </span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[129]   After considering the evidence led in its totality I find that the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a wet floor in Jet Stores on 17 June 2016 and that as a result she fell and sustained injuries on which she bases her claim. I further find that the plaintiff failed to prove that her medical condition resulted from the alleged fall.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Costs</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">[130]   It is a well beaten principle of our law that costs follow the event. No compelling reasons were placed before the court why the said principle should not be followed neither could be established from the evidence why such principle should be departed from. As a result, the plaintiff is awarded costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Order</span></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[131]   In the result, I order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs, such costs include costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">The matter is regarded as finalised and removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">_____________</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">O S Sibeya</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Judge</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPEARANCES:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">PLAINTIFF:                                 R Mondo</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:240px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Of Nixon Marcus Public Law Office, </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:240px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Windhoek.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">DEFENDANT:                             L Ihalwa </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">                                                  Instructed by ENSAfrica / Namibia, </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:192px; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Windhoek</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Mbaile v Shiindi</span></i> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">(HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-DEL-2018/00316) [2020] NAHCNLD 152 (22 October 2020).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> Rule 26.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit DD.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit D.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit Y2.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit U.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> <i>Kruger v Coetzee</i></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-H</span>.</span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Probst v Pick n Pay Retailers</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> [1998] 2 All SA 186 (W). See also: <i>Gordon v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another</i> (32665/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 773 (26 September 2014).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> <i>SFW Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and Others</i> 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) at page 14H – 15E.</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> <i>National Employers’ General Insurance v Jagers</i> 1984 (4) SA 437 (E) at 440E-F.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="" id="_ftn11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Exhibit E.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:50:05 +0000 Mariana 26451 at http://namiblii.org Owoses v Government of the Republic of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 1723 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 484 (15 September 2022); http://namiblii.org/na/judgment/high-court-main-division/2022/484 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Owoses v Government of the Republic of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 1723 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 484 (15 September 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mariana</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 10/03/2022 - 19:46</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p class="Body" style="border:none; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delict – Assault – Action for damages – Assessment of damages is a discretionary matter and has as its objective to fairly and adequately compensate an injured party – Amount to be awarded as compensation cannot be determined with mathematical precision and awards in previous cases serve as a guide.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p class="Body" style="border:none; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The plaintiff is a woman, 53 years of age (she was 49 at the time of the incident) and was employed as a flight attendant with Air Namibia. She claims N$145 000 as general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life as a result of an assault. Plaintiff says that she was assaulted by members of the Namibian Police, Defence Force and Windhoek City Police on or about 2 June 2019 at approximately 17h00 to 18h00.  This assault occurred at or near her house in Windhoek North. She asserts that this assault resulted in her suffering injuries, trauma, pain and indignity. She alleges that she was slapped across the face by a tall unknown member of the Namibian Defence Force. He also hit her on her back with the butt of his assault rifle. She alleges that she ran into her house and was again assaulted in her house by the same person. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Body" style="border:none; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="Body" style="border:none; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Held</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> that in determining the quantum of general damages one should consider the person before court as well as the circumstances of the incident. The age of the person, his or her gender, the psychological make-up of the person, the nature and duration of the violation, the impact of the trauma on the person and the duration of the physical and psychological consequences of the violation should be considered.</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Plaintiff in this matter is a woman aged 53 (49 at the time of the incident). She was assaulted on her premises by members of the Namibian Police and Namibian Defence Force who were part of a law enforcement operation. This is atrocious and is treated as a severe assault. The fact that a man armed with an assault rifle sees it fit to assault a woman with the butt of the rifle is disturbing and must be extremely traumatizing for a 49 year old woman. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and suffers from depression and anxiety. It will likely haunt her for some time.</span></span></span> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Consequently, the court awards the plaintiff N$145 000 as damages.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-msword file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.namiblii.org/files/judgments/nahcmd/2022/484/2022-nahcmd-484.doc" type="application/msword; length=135168">2022-nahcmd-484.doc</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="center" class="Body" style="border:none; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="Body" style="border:none; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><img alt="Coat of Arms.bmp" src="