Supreme Court http://namiblii.org/ en Standic BV v Petroholland Holding (Pty) Ltd (SA 9 of 2020) [2022] NASC 30 (23 September 2022); http://namiblii.org/na/judgment/supreme-court/2022/30 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Standic BV v Petroholland Holding (Pty) Ltd (SA 9 of 2020) [2022] NASC 30 (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">Sun, 09/25/2022 - 18:40</span> <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="MsoNoSpacing" 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 an application which sought an order declaring a default judgment granted against the respondents in a foreign court (a Dutch court) enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, the court <i>a quo</i> dismissed the application on the basis of two points raised <i>in limine</i> by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in upholding the first point <i>in limine</i> that the documents on which the appellant relied on for the default judgment had not been authenticated. The court <i>a quo</i> impermissibly relied on a bare and unsubstantiated allegation by the respondents to this effect, in spite of uncontested evidence by the appellant that the documents relied on had indeed been properly authenticated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in upholding the second point <i>in limine</i> that the default judgment pronounced in the District Court of Rotterdam had not been final and conclusive. The court <i>a quo</i> misinterpreted the uncontroverted expert evidence presented on behalf of the appellant, and on which evidence the court <i>a quo</i> itself relied on for its decision, to the effect that the default judgment granted, was final, definitive and unassailable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respect of disputes of fact in application proceedings, a court must establish whether or not there is a real dispute of fact. A bare or unsubstantiated denial of material averments cannot be regarded as sufficient to defeat an applicant’s right to secure relief on affidavit. Enough must be stated, by a respondent, to enable the court to ascertain whether the denials are not fictitious or intended merely to delay. If the statement constituting the denial is an inference from the facts, the affidavit in question must at least disclose facts supporting the inference. A court must not permit simple and blatant stratagems of denial to circumvent its effective functioning.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 inappropriate and unfair for a judicial officer to unilaterally or <i>mero motu</i> make findings on matters not put before him or her either in evidence, or oral or written submissions by a party, and in circumstances where the party against whom the judgment is given had not been given the opportunity to address the court upon such issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">As a general rule the appeal court is disinclined to allow a party to raise a point for the first time on appeal but has a discretion to allow or disallow such new point; where it is covered by the pleadings; where it would be unfair to the other party; and where the other party would have conducted its case differently had the point been raised earlier in litigation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 appeal against the dismissal of the application in the court <i>a quo</i>, is upheld and the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside with costs.</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-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.namiblii.org/files/judgments/nasc/2022/30/2022-nasc-30.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=108900">2022-nasc-30.docx</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 style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><img alt="Coat of Arms.bmp" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="" style="width:100.2pt; height:104.4pt" /></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">CASE NO: SA 9/2020</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAMIBIA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">STANDIC BV</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">Appellant</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">PETROHOLLAND HOLDING (PTY) LTD</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">First Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">PETROHOLAND OIL REFINING (PTY) LTD</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">Second Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">RENE JOHANNES CHRISTIAAN WILHELMUS KESSELS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">Third Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        MAINGA JA, HOFF JA and LIEBENBERG AJA</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard:          16 March 2022 </span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered:    23 September 2022</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><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">Summary:    </span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application which sought an order declaring a default judgment granted against the respondents in a foreign court (a Dutch court) enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, the court <i>a quo</i> dismissed the application on the basis of two points raised <i>in limine</i> by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in upholding the first point <i>in limine</i> that the documents on which the appellant relied on for the default judgment had not been authenticated. The court <i>a quo</i> impermissibly relied on a bare and unsubstantiated allegation by the respondents to this effect, in spite of uncontested evidence by the appellant that the documents relied on had indeed been properly authenticated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in upholding the second point <i>in limine</i> that the default judgment pronounced in the District Court of Rotterdam had not been final and conclusive. The court <i>a quo</i> misinterpreted the uncontroverted expert evidence presented on behalf of the appellant, and on which evidence the court <i>a quo</i> itself relied on for its decision, to the effect that the default judgment granted, was final, definitive and unassailable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respect of disputes of fact in application proceedings, a court must establish whether or not there is a real dispute of fact. A bare or unsubstantiated denial of material averments cannot be regarded as sufficient to defeat an applicant’s right to secure relief on affidavit. Enough must be stated, by a respondent, to enable the court to ascertain whether the denials are not fictitious or intended merely to delay. If the statement constituting the denial is an inference from the facts, the affidavit in question must at least disclose facts supporting the inference. A court must not permit simple and blatant stratagems of denial to circumvent its effective functioning.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 inappropriate and unfair for a judicial officer to unilaterally or <i>mero motu</i> make findings on matters not put before him or her either in evidence, or oral or written submissions by a party, and in circumstances where the party against whom the judgment is given had not been given the opportunity to address the court upon such issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">As a general rule the appeal court is disinclined to allow a party to raise a point for the first time on appeal but has a discretion to allow or disallow such new point; where it is covered by the pleadings; where it would be unfair to the other party; and where the other party would have conducted its case differently had the point been raised earlier in litigation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 appeal against the dismissal of the application in the court <i>a quo</i>, is upheld and the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">___________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPEAL JUDGMENT</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">____________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA (MAINGA JA and LIEBENBERG AJA concurring):</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]      On 15 November 2012 the appellant (applicant <i>a quo</i>) launched an application in the High Court (court <i>a quo</i>) in which the applicant sought an order declaring and ordering that the judgment granted against the respondents by the District Court of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, on 22 February 2012 is enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, jointly and severally.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]      In this regard, the applicant (appellant) sought an order directing the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the applicant:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The amount of €398 081,04 reflecting the capital portion of the applicant’s claim;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The amount of €4529,17 reflecting the legal costs payable to applicant by the respondents, arising from proceedings in the District Court of Rotterdam;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(i)     €199 040,52 representing the first rental amount that fell due to applicant 15 days after the date of invoice date in terms of which the due date for the payment of the first invoice was 4 June 2011;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(ii)     €199 040,52 representing the second rental that fell due on 4 July 2011 to date of the order made by the Honourable court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      Interest at the <i>mora</i> rate of Namibia namely 20% as the interest rate applicable from the date of the order of this court to all amounts ordered to be paid to the applicant, calculated from the date of such order until the date of final payment of all such amounts;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      The costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant in Namibia, on the scale as between party and party; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(f)       <i>Mora</i> interest on any amount of costs awarded to applicant, calculated from the date of the <i>allocatur</i> of the Taxing Master to date of payment thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]      The court <i>a quo</i> dismissed applicant’s application and ordered applicant to pay first and second respondents’ costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]      For reasons not relevant to the present appeal, the third respondent no longer plays any role in the proceedings. No relief is sought against him, neither is he cited as a party to the appeal and is referred to purely for purposes of lending context to the contents of appellant’s appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]      The application was opposed by the respondents who raised six points <i>in limine</i>. The court <i>a quo</i> in its judgment dealt only with the following points. The first point, according to the court <i>a quo</i>, was that the appellant’s documents which constituted an essential element of the appellant’s cause of action, were not authenticated as required by the rules of the court <i>a quo</i>; secondly, that some of the documents which formed part of the appellant’s evidence and pleadings were not translated from the Dutch language to the English language; thirdly, the documents which were translated were not translated by a sworn translator of the court <i>a quo</i>; and fourthly, that the foreign judgment relied upon was not final, but merely a preliminary order which was obtained by default in Rotterdam.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]      In respect of the first point <i>in limine</i>, the court <i>a quo</i> found firstly, that the founding affidavit in support of the application, by one Frank Berkhout (Berkhout), for the reasons provided, did not need to be authenticated. Secondly, it was found that the signatures on the judgment on which the appellant relied on, purporting to be a judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, were not authenticated. This point was upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]      In respect of the second point <i>in limine</i> the court <i>a quo</i> found that the relevant documents attached to the founding affidavit had indeed been translated from the Dutch language to the English language, and did not uphold this point. The third point <i>in limine</i> was also disallowed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]      In respect of the fourth point <i>in limine</i> the court <i>a quo</i> held that the judgment relied on by the appellant was not final and conclusive, and this point was upheld. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]      The appeal lies not only against the upholding of aforementioned points <i>in limine</i>, but also against a finding by the court <i>a quo</i>, that it ‘is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his client and also provide evidence and expert evidence in the case he has taken upon himself to be a party to’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]    In support of the application Berkhout, practising as a legal practitioner in the Netherlands, in his founding affidavit set out his qualifications and experience and explained the history of the present litigation in the Netherlands and referred to subsequent correspondence addressed to the second respondent in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]    It is common cause that the third respondent was at the time the contract had been concluded between the second respondent and the appellant, the chief executive officer of both first and second respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]    Berkhout stated that the appellant and second respondent concluded a written agreement in the Netherlands on 20 June 2011 in terms of which the appellant made certain storage facilities for liquid goods, in bulk, available to the second respondent for a period of 12 months at appellant’s terminal at Dordrecht. The first respondent is the holding company of the second respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]    Berkhout stated that the second respondent became liable to appellant for payment in the amount of €398 081,04 in respect of the rental facilities for the months June and July 2011, charged at the sum of €199 040,52 per month. The first respondent, it was averred, expressly undertook and accepted liability of the second respondent to pay the said amounts to the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]    According to Berkhout, the respondents provided numerous unequivocal undertakings to pay the amount of €398 081,04 to the appellant, but failed to do so. The appellant thereupon cancelled the agreement, and initiated proceedings against the respondents, jointly and severally, in the District Court of Rotterdam, for the payment of the outstanding debt. The joint and several liability of each respondent was based on, in the case of:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                    </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      the first respondent, an undertaking that such company would be liable and responsible for the payment of the amounts due to the appellant;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      second respondent, the provisions of the written agreement; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      the third respondent (Kessels), his misconduct in his capacity as chief executive officer of the first two respondents, for which liability the Dutch law makes provision in a similar manner to which the Namibian law provides for such liability in terms of s 430 of the Namibian Companies Act 28 of 2004.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]    Berkhout stated that a provisional or <i>interim</i> judgment for the debt due to the appellant was granted by the District Court of Rotterdam on 22 February 2012 jointly and severally against the respondents, after a hearing on 15 February 2012 from which proceedings the respondents intentionally absented themselves. The proceedings against the respondents were not further defended by themselves thereafter, whereupon the <i>interim</i> order against them became final in nature. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    The appellant now seeks to enforce this judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam against the respondents, in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    Berkhout further elaborated that in respect of the contents of the exhibits annexed to the summons, neither of the respondents disputed liability to the appellant for the amount owing, and at best for the respondents, the contents of such exhibits presented numerous and repetitive endeavours to achieve a respite for the payment of the debt owing without seeking to present any reason or grounds why they should be exonerated, excused or exempted from liability to pay.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    Berkhout stated that the respondents at no stage indicated that they may wish to defend the proceedings against them (in the District Court of Rotterdam), or that they had any defence to the claims forming the subject matter of such proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]    In addition to the capital amount, according to Berkhout, judgment was granted against the respondents in respect of an amount of €4529,17 reflecting the legal costs payable by the respondents, and in terms of Dutch law the respondents incurred liability for the payment of ‘statutory commercial interest’ to the appellant at the rate of 8% per annum.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[20]    Berkhout in his founding affidavit also referred to and discussed the principles relating to the enforcement of a foreign judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]    Berkhout stated that it clearly appears from a letter dated 14 February 2012 addressed to himself by a certain Hiskia Auchab,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> that the respondents had full knowledge of the court hearing on 15 February 2012 and that they had wilfully and intentionally caused a judgment by default to be given against them by express prohibition issued to Kessels against attending the proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    Berkhout stated that, on the assumption that neither of the respondents knew about the proceedings on 15 February 2012, each one would have been at liberty, for a period of eight weeks after the date of judgment, or after they had become aware thereof, to oppose the claims of the appellant by duly instituted ‘<i>verzet</i>’ proceedings, however, no such further proceedings at the behest of the respondents eventuated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[23]    Instead, according to Berkhout, by way of a letter dated 5 March 2012 the respondents reacted with further proposals of new business ventures that would have facilitated their financial ability to pay the appellant’s claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    An opposing affidavit was deposed to by Sidney Wilfred Martin (Martin) on behalf of the respondents. Martin stated that he is a director of the first and second respondents and has been duly authorised to depose to the opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    <i>In limine</i>, the point was raised that the application of the appellant was fatally defective in the following respects:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      the ‘composite court process’ for the purpose of enforcement of a foreign judgment is not a ‘notice of motion document’, but a ‘provisional sentence document’;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      the foreign judgment relied upon is not final as is evident from the affidavit of Berkhout (paragraph 48);</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      the foreign judgment relied upon is <i>ex facie</i> the record not a liquid document as is evident from the affidavit of Berkhout (paragraph 48);</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      the document (foreign judgment) does not inform the respondents (a) of the consequence of their failure to pay the amount claimed, and (b) of the respondents’ right to demand security for the restitution thereof should they pay the amount;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      all the documents which constitute an essential element of the cause of action in terms of a claim based on foreign documents ‘must be annexed to the action’, must be true copies, and must be duly authenticated – none of the appellant’s documents were authenticated and were further in a foreign language to the first and second respondents. Therefore the application does not disclose or reveal a cause of action or give rise to an enforceable claim.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    In the answering affidavit, the respondents contested the appellant’s reliance on Dutch law and appellant’s reliance on conduct by the third respondent which may have the effect of binding first and second respondents. The first and second respondents denied liability in any amount owing to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    In his replying affidavit, Berkhout made the point that, despite the fact that both Martin and the third respondent are currently directors of the first and second respondents, and despite the fact that the third respondent must have been in a position to deal with the contents of the application papers of the appellant, the first and second respondents elected, most likely for tactical reasons, to cause their answering papers to be deposed to by Martin, with whom the appellant had no dealings whatsoever, and whose evidence as set out in the answering affidavit clearly amounts to pure hearsay. Furthermore, it appears that the third respondent was specifically not chosen as the party to respond to the appellant’s founding papers, to enable Martin to raise the objection that the documents relied upon by the appellant are in a foreign language in which he is not proficient.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    It was averred by Berkhout that Martin cannot have any personal knowledge of any of the events, facts or circumstances set out in the founding affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]    It was pointed out by Berkhout, that the fact that the first and second respondents (in the answering affidavit) ‘<i>contest their liability</i>’ for the relief claimed by the appellant is the first occasion during the period of 27 September 2011 to 22 February 2013 that any of the respondents denied their liability – that such ‘contesting’ is spurious in nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]    The appellant in its replying affidavit fully dealt with all the allegations contained in the answering affidavit of the respondents. It is not necessary to record all those replies since there were only two points <i>in limine</i> upheld by the court <i>a quo</i> and which are relevant for the determination of this appeal, namely firstly the point upheld that the judgment relied on by the appellant, in particular the signatures on such judgment were not authenticated, and secondly, that the judgment was not final and conclusive.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    In respect of the point raised that the judgment was not authenticated, the appellant made the following points:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      Martin in his answering affidavit stated that . . . ‘the copies of the documents annexed must be true copies and correspond with the originals in material respects . . .’, without any allegation that the applicant’s papers failed to comply with this requirement.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The allegation by Martin that: ‘None of the applicant’s documents are authenticated’, is incorrect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The appellant referred to rule 63 of the repealed Rules of the High Court of Namibia which deals with the authentication of documents executed outside Namibia for use within Namibia, and referred to the circumstances under which any document executed at any place outside Namibia shall be deemed to be sufficiently authenticated for the purpose of use in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      In terms of Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents,<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> to which both the Netherlands and Belgium are State parties, and to which Namibia acceded on 30 January 2001, any public document ‘emanating from an authority or an official connected with the courts or tribunals of the State, including those emanating from . . . a clerk of a court or a process-server (‘<i>huissier de justice</i>’)’ and ‘administrative documents’ are exempted from legalisation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    It was pointed out that both annexures FB 1<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> and FB 2<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> to the founding affidavit are documents of such nature, ie documents referred to in paragraph [31] (c) above. The judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam bears the official stamp of the ‘Griffier Rechtbank, Rotterdam’ as well as the signature of the ‘Griffier’, together with the confirmation that the judgment had been given by ‘Meester A.F.L. Geerdes in the presence of Meester H.C. Fraaij, clerk of the court, and was pronounced in public on 22 February 2012’, and that the document was signed by both Messrs Geerdes and Fraaij.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    It was further pointed out, and correctly so, that apart from the bold assertion that ‘none of the documents’ have been authenticated, Martin’s affidavit contains no assertion of whatever nature, that either or any of the documents are not what the appellant claims them to be; or that they had been forged; or that the appellant had tampered with the documents in a manner to misrepresent the contents thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    In respect of the second point that the judgment relied upon was not final, the appellant pointed out that his founding affidavit is replete with repetitive contentions, assertions and proof that the foreign judgment relied upon became a final judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    Thus, even the paragraph upon which Martin ‘disingenuously’ relied upon for purposes of claiming that Berkhout, himself, suggested that the judgment is not a final one (paragraph 48), contains assertions directly contrary to the conclusion of Martin that the judgment remained a preliminary order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[36]    The appellant sought an order directing Martin to pay the costs of the application, jointly and severally with the first and second respondents, <i>de bonis propriis</i>, on the scale as between attorney and own client, on the basis that it appears that the first and second respondents are entities of no substantial financial substance, against whom the appellant would most likely not be able to execute any costs order in its favour. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judgment of the court <i>a quo</i></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[37]    Before dealing with the points <i>in limine</i> raised by the respondents, the presiding judge found it necessary to deal with a matter which caused him ‘great discomfort’, and that was the fact that, according to the presiding judge, Berkhout who launched these proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> and who deposed to the affidavit on behalf of the appellant, is the same legal practitioner who represented the appellant in the Netherlands, and the same legal representative who instructed the local representatives of the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[38]    The presiding judge <i>a quo</i> was of the view that Berkhout assumed three roles, namely, he instituted the proceedings, deposed to the founding affidavit, and testified as an expert witness on behalf of the appellant. The critical question which arose in these circumstances, troubling the presiding judge, was whether the court <i>a quo</i> could accept the expert witness testimony of Berkhout.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[39]    The presiding officer <i>a quo</i> referred to authority which requires that a legal representative should, <i>inter alia</i>, conduct his practice with a high degree of independence, and that an expert witness should provide a court with an objective and unbiased opinion, based on his or her experience – a person who does not assume the role of advocate.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[40]    The court <i>a quo</i> concluded that Berkhout could not have performed three different roles without overstepping the boundaries of the different roles, since (by way of an example) the duty of an expert witness to give non-partisan and objective testimony is inconsistent with an attorney-client relationship and for those reasons the presiding judge <i>a quo</i> was ‘disinclined to accept the expert testimony of Berkhout’. The presiding judge <i>a quo</i> stated that Berkhout appears to be ‘well qualified’, but despite his reluctance to accept Berkhout’s expert testimony, he would proceed to consider the points <i>in limine</i> (on the very same rejected expert evidence of Berkhout).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[41]    In respect of the point <i>in limine</i> that ‘none of the Applicant’s documents are authenticated’, the court a quo correctly pointed out that it is not sufficient merely to question the authenticity of documents without specifying the document or directing the court and the opponent to the document that is being assailed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[42]    The court <i>a quo</i> then proceeded to consider the judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, annexure ‘FB 2’, and referred to the page where the judgment concluded as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘This judgment has been given by Meester A.F.L. Geerdes, in the presence of Meester H.C. Fraaij, clerk of the court, and pronounced in public on 22 February 2012 1862/676</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            [signed] illegible                                                                                  [signed] illegible'</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[43]    The court <i>a quo</i> found that the signatures on the document ‘purporting’ to be the judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, which Berkhout attached to his affidavit, are not legible; that all that the court is informed is that the document was signed but as to who signed the document, the court <i>a quo</i> is expected to assume that Geerdes and Fraaij signed the default judgment. Therefore, the court <i>a quo</i> found that ‘there is merit in the respondents’ complaint that the signatures on the summons were not authenticated’. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[44]    In respect of the point <i>in limine</i> that the judgment relied on was not final, the court <i>a quo</i> firstly referred to Martin’s answering affidavit in which Martin stated that the foreign judgment is not final as is evident from paragraph 48 of Berkhout’s affidavit where Berkhout stated that the judgment is a preliminary order that was obtained by default. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[45]    The court <i>a quo</i> then proceeded to refer to the founding affidavit where Berkhout discussed the finality of the default judgment granted by the District Court of Rotterdam. In this affidavit the court <i>a quo</i> pointed out that Berkhout stated that a party may seek preliminary relief in terms of Art 254 of the Dutch Civil Procedure Code (the Code) in all matters which require immediate court intervention, normally referred to as ‘preliminary relief proceedings’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[46]    The court <i>a quo</i> referred to where Berkhout (in his affidavit) pointed out that in terms of the Code, a default judgment may be opposed by issuing ‘<i>verzet summons</i>’ setting out the grounds of opposition by a defendant before the same court which granted the order, and that the Code does not make provision for any condonation proceedings if the ‘<i>verzet summons</i>’ was not timeously lodged, in which case the preliminary order then becomes final, definitive and unassailable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[47]    The court <i>a quo</i> pointed out that Berkhout stated that in the present proceedings the respondents were informed of the judgment already on 23 February 2012 but despite this knowledge, the respondents did not make any endeavours to either appeal or launch ‘<i>verzet proceedings</i>’ and as a result, the preliminary order became a final default judgment. The court <i>a quo</i> also referred to the founding affidavit where Berkhout stated that there was proper service on all the parties, prior to the granting of the order by the court and that proof of service was attached to his affidavit. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[48]    The court <i>a quo</i> then continued to discuss the legal principles relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments by stating that foreign judgments are not directly enforceable in Namibia unless certain requirements are met, <i>inter alia</i>, that the judgment must be final and conclusive and must not have become superannuated – that a judgment is deemed to be final when it is not capable of alteration by the court which granted it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[49]    The court <i>a quo</i>, applying the legal principles to the facts, stated that the evidence (the expert testimony of Berkhout) made it quite clear that a preliminary or interlocutory order made by the District Court of Rotterdam, the existence of the debt may, despite the existence of the order, between the same parties be afterwards contested in that court, and it may be declared that there existed no obligation to pay the debt at all. The court <i>a quo</i> was of the view that such a judgment, preliminary or interlocutory order cannot be regarded as final and conclusive, since ‘it cannot be disputed that judgment, preliminary interlocutory order is capable of being altered by the same court that has issued or granted it’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[50]    The court <i>a quo</i> continued and stated the following in paragraphs 54 and 55:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[54]     The fact that a defendant, as in this case the respondents, did not sue out ‘verzet summons’ to set aside the default judgment granted against them is irrelevant and does not affect the question whether or not the judgment is final and conclusive. I therefore uphold the point <i>in limine</i> by the respondents. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for me to consider whether the Rotterdam District Court had jurisdiction over the first and second respondents. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            [55]      For the avoidance of doubt I make the following findings. It is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his client and also provide evidence and expert evidence in the case he has taken upon himself to be a party to. Secondly I find that the purported default judgment granted by the Rotterdam District Court is not properly authenticated as required by Rule 63 of the now repealed rules of this Court and such a failure is fatal. Thirdly the judgment on which Standic relies is not final and conclusive. For these reasons I will dismiss the applicant’s application</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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Notices of appeal</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[51]    There are divergent contentions on which date the aforementioned application was set down for hearing. The appellant in its notice of appeal contended that the matter was set down for hearing on 6 and 7 February 2014 when arguments on behalf of the parties were presented to the court <i>a quo</i>; that judgment was reserved on                  7 February 2014, and that the presiding judge indicated that he would deliver his judgment in March 2014.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[52]    In the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> (delivered on 27 May 2020), it was stated that arguments in respect of the appellant’s application were heard on 7 February 2017 with the promise to deliver the judgment not later than six months from that date – ie around September 2017. It is common cause that the judge <i>a quo</i> failed to keep his promise.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[53]    Against this background the appellant on 31 January 2020 filed a notice of appeal in the absence of a judgment by the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[54]    In its notice of appeal it was stated that the basis on which the appeal was launched, was that the court <i>a quo</i> constructively refused the relief sought by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[55]    It was stated that despite the lapse of six years from the date upon which judgment had been reserved, and despite written requests urging the presiding judge to give his urgent attention to the preparation and handing down of the judgment, this has not been done.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[56]    The appellant avers that, in view of the circumstances, the failure of the judge to deliver his judgment in the six year period, amounts to constructive refusal of the relief sought, and that the appeal was being pursued upon the principles enunciated in the matter of <i>Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa &amp; others v Tshabalala-Msimang</i> <i>&amp; another NNO; New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd</i> <i>v Minister of Health &amp; another </i>(<i>New Clicks</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> in which it was held that an unreasonable delay in pronouncing judgment upon relief sought by a litigant could under appropriate circumstances, amount to a constructive refusal of such relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[57]    It was further pointed out that since there is no written judgment to which the appellant’s grounds of appeal can be directed, the grounds of appeal will be the grounds upon which the appellant sought its relief in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[58]    In a supplementary notice of appeal (filed on 3 July 2020) the appellant stated that if the contention of constructive refusal were not to be upheld, the appellant will in the supplementary grounds of appeal demonstrate that the court <i>a quo</i> in any event erred in its May 2020 judgment, justifying the setting aside of that judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[59]    The appellant referred to the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> dated 27 May 2020 summarised (at paragraph 55) its own findings limited to three findings.<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[60]    The appellant avers that the first finding could not have any effect on the outcome of the appellant’s application in the court <i>a quo</i>, whilst the second and third findings are demonstrably incorrect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[61]    In the supplementary notice of appeal, the appellant further elaborated on the contention that the findings of the court <i>a quo</i> were erroneous, and it is not necessary to repeat them here.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Submissions on appeal</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the appellant</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[62]    The legal practitioner on behalf of the appellant confirmed in oral argument as well as in his heads of argument, the ground of appeal in respect of constructive refusal, based on certain authorities cited, and a passage in the judgment, acknowledged by the presiding judge that ‘. . . it is unfair and unreasonable to parties who approached court to wait for more than three years for the pronouncement by the court on their dispute’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[63]    It was submitted that the appeal should be based on the fact that the court <i>a quo</i> constructively refused the relief sought by the appellant and that this constructive refusal was eventually vindicated by the judgment of 27 May 2020 refusing the relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[64]    It was submitted that the eventual judgment substantially reduced the grounds of appeal of the appellant as articulated in the first notice of appeal, in that the judgment relied upon a limited number of issues as grounds for the refusal of the relief sought by the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[65]    In respect of the first finding in paragraph 55 of the judgment to the effect that it is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his or her client, it was submitted that in this jurisdiction there is no complete prohibition upon an attorney deposing to an affidavit launching an application, and although the courts have expressed their displeasure at such conduct, there may be exceptional circumstances, as in the instant case, where a legal practitioner will be obliged to make a statement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[66]    However, still on this finding, it was submitted that it was not raised by the respondents in argument before the court <i>a quo</i>. In addition, this point was not taken by Martin in his answering affidavit – this was not an issue. Neither of the respondents, it was submitted, took the point that the institution of the application was irregular, and appellant’s counsel was at no stage prior to the delivery of the judgment in May 2020, required by the court <i>a quo</i> to address the issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[67]    It was submitted that it was not open to the court <i>a quo</i> to unilaterally or <i>mero motu</i> make findings about the credibility and acceptability of the evidence of Berkhout where the respondents did not deem it necessary or appropriate to impugn such evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[68]    It was submitted that it is constitutionally unfair to base a judgment upon an issue in respect of which the party against whom the judgment is given had not been given the opportunity to address the court upon such issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[69]    In respect of the finding that the default judgment granted was not properly authenticated, raised by Martin in his answering affidavit, it was pointed out by counsel that evidence contained in the replying affidavit on behalf of the appellant dealt with this finding by the court <i>a quo</i>, in which Berkhout stated that the authentication of the default judgment complied with the provisions of rule 63(2), and in addition thereto Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961 the default judgment in the circumstances is exempted from legalisation. It was submitted that the court <i>a quo</i> did not deal with this evidence of Berkhout but simply dismissed the application upon points the court did not deal with.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[70]    It was further submitted on this issue, that there was not the slightest suggestion that the default judgment was alleged not to be what it was – no objection was ever lodged against the validity of that judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[71]    In respect of the finding that the default judgment was not final and conclusive, it was submitted that the court <i>a quo</i> quoted extensively from the evidence of Berkhout in which he explained the circumstances under which preliminary proceedings became final and conclusive, without raising a single word of criticism against the accuracy and persuasiveness thereof. This evidence of Berkhout, it was submitted, did not leave any room for the court <i>a quo</i> to conclude in paragraph 53 of the judgment that the default judgment relied upon was capable of being altered by the same court which has granted it and on that basis formed the view that the preliminary order cannot be regarded as final and conclusive.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[72]    It was submitted that the heads of argument on behalf of the respondents contained no submissions made in respect of all the issues raised by the court <i>a quo</i>, but instead, counsel for the respondents dealt with a brand new issue and that is the contention that the foreign judgment offends public policy in Namibia. This issue, it was submitted, was not raised at the inception of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, and no argument was presented on it in the court <i>a quo</i> – it was never an issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[73]    It was submitted that it cannot now ten years down the line for the first time be raised in argument on appeal. It was further submitted that nevertheless, the argument that the foreign judgment offends public policy is misconceived.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the respondent</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[74]    The first point raised on behalf of the respondents was that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of rules 7, 8 and 14 of the Rules of this Court, rendering appellant’s appeal liable to be struck from the roll with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[75]    Counsel on behalf of the respondents referred to the affidavit in support of a condonation application for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, where the deponent to the affidavit, a legal practitioner, stated (in paragraph 14 of the affidavit) that the appellant relied on legal advice from both its instructing and instructed legal practitioner, to the effect that, given the special circumstances of this matter, rule 14(2) of the Rules of this Court found no application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[76]    It was submitted that the appellant’s position at the inception of the proceedings was not to provide security for costs, that such security was not filed, resulting in the lapsing of the appeal. It was submitted that there was no appeal before this court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[77]    It was submitted that the tendering as security of an amount of N$150 000 by the appellant, did not change the position, since the respondents did not consent to this amount and neither was this amount determined by the registrar of this court as prescribed by the rules. It was submitted, in addition on this point, that there is nothing in the condonation application justifying why this court should usurp the function of the registrar. Thus without security being provided, the appeal should be struck from the roll with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[78]    It was submitted that an ‘appeal’ noted in the absence of a judgment or an order of the court <i>a quo</i>, on the reading of the express terms of rule 7(1) and (3) of the Rules of this Court, enjoys no status. In the absence of a judgment or order appealed against, it was submitted, this court would undesirably, in essence act as a court of first and final instance. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that the ratio in the <i>New Clicks </i>case<i> </i>is distinguishable from the circumstances of this matter and does not find application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[79]    In respect of the heads of argument on behalf of the appellant and the submissions made therein it was submitted that some of those submissions are not supported by the record in respect of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. It was submitted that since it was viewed essential for the determination of the appeal, the appellant should have filed those parts of the record supporting its contentions, in terms of the provisions of rule 11(8). For example, it was contended in paragraph 4 of the appellant’s heads of argument that the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> were set down on 6 and 7 February 2014, judgment was reserved, that the court <i>a quo</i> would have delivered judgment in March 2014, and that judgment was eventually delivered six years later. This contention, it was submitted, should have been apparent from the record, which it was not. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[80]    Similarly, in paragraph 50 of the appellant’s heads of argument, it was submitted that at no stage during oral argument during any of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> had it been submitted that the application in the (District Court of Rotterdam) had been instituted irregularly. There was, it was submitted, no record filed to support this contention.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[81]    Similarly, in paragraph 51 of appellant’s heads of argument, appellant’s counsel contended that it was not open for the court <i>a quo</i> to unilaterally make findings about the credibility and acceptability of Berkhout’s evidence in circumstances where the respondents failed to impugn such evidence. Again, it was submitted, by respondents’ counsel, this is not apparent from the record of appeal, and this court only has the word of counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted that it is improper to attribute a matter to the court below without putting the record that is dealing with an issue, and which this court is called upon to deal with, before this court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[82]    In respect of the notices of appeal filed, it was submitted in respect of the notice dated 31 January 2020, should it be accepted as a notice of appeal in terms of rule 7(3)(a), the appellant filed it out of time. If the supplementary notice of appeal dated     3 July 2020 is to be accepted as the notice of appeal, it was also lodged out of time. It was submitted there was no condonation application in respect of these non-compliances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[83]    Lastly, it was submitted that considerations of public policy regarding the enforcement and executability of foreign judgments within the jurisdiction of this court, broadly entails an assessment whether or not the respondents were afforded procedural and substantive fairness in the proceedings giving rise to a judgment and order obtained in a foreign court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[84]    In this regard it was submitted that the appellant has failed to set out in the founding affidavit why it is appropriate for this court to recognise that foreign judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Evaluation</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[85]    In view of the fact that the court <i>a quo</i>, subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, indeed pronounced its judgment, I deem it unnecessary to decide whether the principle expounded in the <i>New Clicks </i>case should also be adopted in Namibia. This appeal can be considered and be determined on the basis of the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[86]    The court <i>a quo</i> in its judgment made three findings referred to hereinbefore, firstly that it is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his client and also provide evidence and expert evidence; secondly, that the judgment granted by the District Court of Rotterdam was not properly authenticated; and thirdly that the judgment on which the appellant relies is not final and conclusive.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[87]    It was submitted on behalf of the appellant in oral argument that the first finding was a new issue which had not been raised in the court <i>a quo</i>, was not raised by the respondents, that no argument in this regard was presented in the court <i>a quo</i>, and that even in the answering affidavit of Martin this point was never raised by him.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[88]    In the heads of argument, on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the court <i>a quo</i> nowhere ruled that the evidence of Berkhout should be struck from the record and nowhere pointed to any pertinent and specifically identified unaccepted or improper consequences arising from the fact that Berkhout had instituted (with full authority to do so) appellant’s proceedings in Namibia, and that neither of the respondents took the point that the institution of the application was irregular. In answer to these circumstances, the legal representative of the respondents submitted that the record does not reflect any submissions that were made in the court below, nor do the heads of argument provided, give any indication of what was said in the court below. It was submitted that in order for the appellant to rely on this specific aspect, the record should have reflected that.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[89]    What is however clear from the record is that in his answering affidavit, Martin never raised this point. This is a fact which cannot be denied by respondent’s counsel. This in my view supports the submission by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that this point was not addressed in the court <i>a quo</i>, because if it had appeared in Martin’s answering affidavit (in the same way as the points <i>in limine</i>), in my view, the court <i>a quo</i> certainly would have referred to this fact, especially in view thereof that the court <i>a quo</i> would have found support in Martin’s viewpoint.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[90]    In addition to this, one cannot conclude from a reading of the judgment of the court itself that the inappropriateness or otherwise of the conduct of Berkhout had been argued in the court <i>a quo</i>. The inference is that the court decided to consider <i>mero motu</i>, this point in its judgment, and the reason for this inference is clear: At no stage, before considering the points <i>in limine</i> did the court <i>a quo</i> refer to any submissions made by the parties in support of or against the court’s point of view.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[91]    Counsel for the respondents is unable to deny the assertion of appellant’s counsel, that this point was never argued in the court <i>a quo</i>, since the former, unlike the latter, did not participate in the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. It is in my view clear that it is not only the word of the appellant’s counsel that the issue of the appropriateness or otherwise of Berkhout giving evidence, which was not argued in the court <i>a quo</i>, but it is supported by the record of appeal itself. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[92]    It is necessary once more to refer to the oft quoted passages in <i>Kauesa v Minister of Home Affairs &amp; others</i>:<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘. . . It is the litigants who must be heard and not the judicial officer. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            It would be wrong for judicial officers to rely for their decisions on matters not put before them by litigants either in evidence or in oral or written submissions. Now and again a Judge comes across a point not argued before him by counsel but which he thinks material to the resolution of the case. It is his duty in such a circumstance to inform counsel on both sides and to invite them to submit arguments either for or against the Judge’s point. It is undesirable for a Court to deliver a judgment with a substantial portion containing issues never canvassed or relied on by counsel.’<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:11.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[93]    In <i>Fischer &amp; another v Ramahlele &amp; others<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> at para 13 the following appears:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[13] Turning then to the nature of civil litigation in our adversarial system, it is for the parties, either in the pleadings or affidavits (which serve the function of both pleadings and evidence), to set out and define the nature of their dispute, and it is for the court to adjudicate upon those issues.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          and at para 14:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            [14]      It is not for the court to raise new issues not traversed in the pleadings or affidavits, however interesting or important they may seem to it, and to insist that the parties deal with them. The parties may have their own reasons for not raising those issues.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Court of Appeal remarked that this point is of great importance because it calls for judicial restraint.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[94]    In holding as the court <i>a quo</i> did, that the conduct of Berkhout was inappropriate in the circumstances and to use this finding as one of the reasons to dismiss the appellant’s application, it erred. Nothing further needs to be said on this point. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The two points <i>in limine</i> considered by the court <i>a quo</i></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The purported default judgment granted by the District Court of Rotterdam is not properly authenticated.</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[95]    The issue of authentication was raised in the answering affidavit of the respondents to the effect that none of the appellant’s documents were authenticated. The appellant responded thereto in its replying affidavit referring to the provisions of rule 63(2) of the Rules of the High Court which provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘(2)       Any document executed in any place outside Namibia shall be deemed to be sufficiently authenticated for the purpose of use in Namibia if it be duly authenticated at such foreign place by the signature and seal of office – </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                        </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:142px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><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">(a)       of the head of a Namibian diplomatic or consular mission or a person in the administrative or professional division of the public service serving at a Namibian diplomatic, consular or trade office abroad or a Namibian foreign service officer grade VI, or an honourary Namibian consul general, honourary consul, vice-consul, honourary vice-consul or honourary trade commissioner . . .’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[96]    Berkhout stated that annexed to his founding affidavit were annexures FB 1 to FB 10 which bore the seal and office of Mr Jens Peter Prothmann (Prothmann) and who is ‘a person in the administrative or professional division of the public service serving at a Namibian diplomatic, consular or trade office abroad or a Namibian foreign service officer grade VI’ at the Embassy of the Republic of Namibia, in Brussels, Belgium, where the authentication of the documents took place, and where his founding affidavit was signed and attested by himself and Prothmann. A copy of the last page of his affidavit showing the signature and seal of office of Prothmann was annexed as annexure FB 16.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[97]    It was further stated by Berkhout in his replying affidavit that in terms of Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents – to which both the Netherlands and Belgium are State parties, and to which Namibia acceded on 30 January 2001, any public document ‘emanating from an authority or an official connected with the courts or tribunals of the State, including those emanating from . . . a clerk of a court or a process-server (‘<i>huissier de justice’</i>)’ and ‘administrative documents’ are exempted from legalisation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[98]    It was pointed out that annexure FB 1, the service of the summons, was effected by the ‘bailiff’ and is therefore a document ‘emanating from a process-server’ and simultaneously amounts to an administrative document as contemplated by Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[99]    It was pointed out by Berkhout that annexure FB 2, the default judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, in terms of the same consideration as set out in the previous paragraph is exempted from legalisation. The default judgment also bears the official stamp of the ‘Griffier Rechtbank, Rotterdam’ at page 1 of the judgment, and bears the signature of the ‘Griffier’, together with a confirmation (on page 2) that the judgment had been given by ‘Meester A.F.L. Geerdes in the presence of Meester H.C. Fraaij, clerk of the court, and was pronounced in public on 22 February 2012’. Berkhout stated that this default judgment was signed by both Geerdes and Fraaij.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[100]   The court <i>a quo</i> (in paragraph 34 of its judgment) stated that the signatures of the document purporting to be the default judgment are not legible leaving the court to assume that those signatures were the signatures of Geerdes and Fraaij. The court <i>a quo</i> concluded that therefore there is ‘merit in the respondents’ complaint that the signatures on the summons were not authenticated’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[101]   The court <i>a quo</i> does, firstly, not deal with Berkhout’s assertion in his replying affidavit that the default judgment was in fact signed by the clerk of the court and pronounced in public on 22 February 2012, and that complying with all other requirements of rule 63(2), the default judgment is deemed to be duly authenticated. Secondly, the denial by Martin is a bare denial. Apart from the bold assertion in his answering affidavit that none of appellant’s documents had been authenticated, Martin’s affidavit contains no assertion that the default judgment is not what the appellant claims it to be, and contains no reason why it is alleged that the default judgment (and other documents) had not been authenticated. It certainly does not contain any averment that the default judgment had not been signed by Geerdes and Fraaij.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[102]   In my view, the court <i>a quo</i> erred when it found that ‘there is merit in the respondents’ complaint that the signatures on the summons were not authenticated’. This is so because it is trite that a respondent cannot content himself or herself in an answering affidavit with a bare or unsubstantiated denial. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[103]   In <i>Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd</i><a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>the following was stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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 crucial question is always whether there is a real dispute of fact. That being so, and the applicant being entitled in the absence of such a dispute to secure relief by means of affidavit evidence, it does not appear that a respondent is entitled to defeat the applicant merely by bare denials such as he might employ in the pleadings of a trial action, for the sole purpose of forcing his opponent in the witness box to undergo cross-examination. Nor is the respondent’s mere allegation of the existence of the dispute of fact conclusive of such existence.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[104]   In <i>Engar &amp; others v Omar Salem Essa Trus</i>t<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the court with reference to alleged disputes of fact in application proceedings pointed out that; it must be established that there is a real dispute of fact; that a bare denial of material averments cannot be regarded as sufficient to defeat an applicant’s right to secure relief on affidavit; that enough must be stated to enable the court to ascertain whether the denials are not fictitious or intended merely to delay; if the statement constituting the denial is an inference from facts, the affidavit in question must at least disclose facts supporting the inference; and the court must not permit simple and blatant stratagems of denial to circumvent its effective functioning. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[105]   In the oft quoted <i>Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd,</i><a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the Appellate Division of South Africa referred with approval to the passage in <i>Room Hire </i>(<i>supra</i>) and advised that in certain circumstances, the denial by a respondent of a fact alleged by the applicant may not be such as to raise a genuine or <i>bona fide</i> dispute of fact and where a court is satisfied as to the inherent credibility of the applicant’s factual averment, it may proceed on the basis of the correctness thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[106]   The allegation by Martin that documents relied on by the appellant had not been authenticated is a bare or unsubstantiated denial which does not raise a <i>bona fide</i> dispute in these circumstances, and the court <i>a quo</i> should have approached the assertions by Berkhout that the relevant documents are deemed to have been sufficiently authenticated and exempted from legalisation, on an unopposed basis.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[107]   The court <i>a quo</i> also did not deal with the contention of Berkhout that the default judgment was in any event exempted from legalisation, ie it was unnecessary for the default judgment to have been authenticated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The point in limine that the default judgment is not final and conclusive</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[108]   Berkhout in his founding affidavit stated that a provisional or <i>interim</i> judgment was granted against the respondents by the District Court of Rotterdam on 22 February 2012, jointly and severally after a hearing on 15 February 2012 from which the respondents had intentionally absented themselves. The proceedings against the respondents were not further defended by them, whereupon the <i>interim </i>order became final in nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[109]   It was stated that if the claim of the plaintiff is disputed in the preliminary relief proceedings on grounds that suggest the existence of a proper defence to the claim, the preliminary or interlocutory relief will not be granted. This also explains why, in most cases, a preliminary judgment constitutes a final and dispositive judgment in the matter, since the very jurisdictional fact that an order was given, postulates the absence of any reasonable or triable defence to the claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[110]   Berkhout deals with the procedure where a default judgment is opposed, namely the institution of ‘<i>verze</i>t’ proceedings by a defendant, as well as the appeal procedures.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[111]   It is not disputed that neither of the respondents made any endeavour to either appeal against the default judgment, or to launch ‘<i>verzet</i>’ proceedings, despite the fact that the respondents had been made aware of the fact of such default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[112]   Importantly, it was stated by Berkhout that if no ‘<i>verzet</i>’ proceedings are timeously lodged, such default judgment, initially made as an interlocutory preliminary order, will then become final, definitive and unassailable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[113]   Martin in his answering affidavit, with reference to Berkhout’s explanation of the process in terms of the Dutch law and how a preliminary order eventually became final and unassailable, stated the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘17.1    I repeat the contents of paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this affidavit. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            17.2     Save for the aforegoing, the contents of these paragraphs are denied.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[114]   I shall briefly consider the contents of these paragraphs in the answering affidavit in order to see if any one of them raised a <i>bona fide</i> dispute. Paragraph 6 of the answering affidavit raised the points <i>in limine</i> referred to hereinbefore. Paragraph 7 contains a submission by Martin that the application is materially defective in that the process which the appellant followed is materially defective; that appellant’s documents attached to the application are materially defective; that the documents are in a foreign language; that the judgment is clearly not final; and that the application does not disclose or reveal a cause of action or give rise to an enforceable claim. These averments are unsubstantiated and have no evidential value. Paragraph 8 stated that the appellant’s reliance on Dutch law is contested. This again is a bare denial. Paragraph 9 stated that appellant’s reliance on conduct by the third respondent which may have the effect to bind first and second respondents is contested and appellant is put to the proof thereof. This paragraph as explained earlier has become irrelevant. Paragraph 10 states that the first and second respondents deny liability of any amount owing to the appellant. This is again a bare denial of liability and was raised for the first time by the respondents in the answering affidavit in the court <i>a quo</i>, and was not raised as it should have been, in the District Court of Rotterdam. In my view, clearly all these paragraphs referred to by Martin do not raise a <i>bona fide</i> dispute and is devoid of any evidential value.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[115]   The court <i>a quo</i>’s conclusion that the default judgment is not final and conclusive, is purportedly founded on the evidence of Berkhout to the effect that in the instance of a preliminary order made, ‘the existence of the debt may, despite the existence of the order, between the same parties be afterwards contested in that court, and upon proper proceedings being taken and such contest being adjudicated upon, it may be decided that there existed no obligation to pay the debt at all’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[116]   This is pure speculation, and in addition, contrary to the evidence of Berkhout, a duly qualified expert in Dutch law, that in the present circumstances the preliminary order became ‘final, definitive and unassailable’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[117]   The court <i>a quo</i> did not deal with the fact that Martin had no answer to the assertion by Berkhout that the default judgment was a final judgment. The court <i>a quo</i>, in my view, erred by misinterpreting Berkhout’s clear and unambiguous evidence. Furthermore, Berkhout’s evidence should have (again) been accepted on an unopposed basis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[118]   Regarding the contention, only raised on appeal, on behalf of the respondents, in respect of considerations of public policy, namely the assessment whether or not the respondents were afforded procedural and substantive fairness in the proceedings giving rise to the default judgment, respondents’ counsel submitted, in oral argument, that the appellant has failed to set out in the founding papers why it is appropriate for this court to recognise the foreign judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[119]   The appellant in paragraphs 52 to 64 of his founding affidavit dealt with the topic of public policy in Namibia and contended that the rules of natural justice regarding the notice of and an opportunity to be present or represented at the proceedings of               15 February 2012, had been complied with. The response of the respondents thereto is contained in paragraph 18 of his answering affidavit where Martin stated that paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his answering affidavit (previously referred to and discussed) are repeated, and that the contents of paragraphs 35 to 60 of the founding affidavit are denied. This is again a bare and unsubstantiated denial and carries no evidential value. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents during oral argument averred that the founding affidavit did not deal with the address of the first respondent, however counsel did not know whether this point was raised in the court <i>a quo</i>. Berkhout in his founding affidavit also dealt with the issue why the District Court of Rotterdam could have exercised jurisdiction over the first respondent. There was not a single objection lodged against the validity of the default judgment. It is significant that the court <i>a quo</i> referred to ‘background information’, set out in appellant’s founding affidavit, which had not been denied by the respondents. One such an instance referred to by the court <i>a quo</i>, and correctly so, was that the first respondent accepted and expressly undertook to pay the amount of €398 081,04 due by the second respondent to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[120]   With reference to the point raised of public policy ie that the respondents were not afforded procedural and substantive fairness in the proceedings giving rise to the default judgment, Berkhout in paragraph 62 of his founding affidavit stated that instead of taking any steps to pursue any defence, the respondents reacted to the proposal in the penultimate paragraph of his letter of 1 March 2012<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a> with further proposals of new business ventures that would have facilitated their financial ability to pay the appellant’s claim. Berkhout stated that the letter of credit which Auchab indicated he wished to issue before 8 March 2012 as payment to the appellant never eventuated. This statement (in paragraph 62 is an averment of an acknowledgement of debt) and was totally left unanswered by Martin in his answering affidavit and stands thus uncontroverted by the respondents. The contention, on behalf of the respondents, that they had not been afforded procedural and substantive fairness, is misconceived. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[121]   Counsel on behalf of the respondents in his heads of argument did not deal with any of the three issues on which the court <i>a quo </i>based its verdict, instead counsel impermissibly raised a new issue, for the first time on appeal, namely that the foreign judgment (the Dutch judgment) offends public policy in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[122]   In <i>Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Ltd</i><a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>this court expressed itself as follows in respect of raising a new defence on appeal:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘As a general matter, the appeal court is disinclined to allow a party to raise a point for the first time on appeal because having chosen the battleground, a party should ordinarily not be allowed to move to a different terrain. However, the court has a discretion whether or not to allow a litigant to raise a new point on appeal. In the exercise of its discretion, the appeal court will have regard to whether: the point is covered by the pleadings; there would be unfairness to the other party; the facts upon which it is based are disputed; and the other party would have conducted its case differently had the point been raised earlier in litigation.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[123]   The point that the foreign judgment obtained was against public policy in Namibia was never raised by the respondents in their answering affidavit and is therefore a point not covered in the pleadings. The legal representative on behalf of the respondents in oral submissions did not address the contention by appellant’s legal representative that the point was raised, impermissibly. This court was also not requested to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the respondents leave to raise this new point on appeal. This point was therefore not available to the respondents on appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[124]   In conclusion, on the two points <i>in limine</i> dealt by the court <i>a quo</i>, it should be clear from the aforesaid evaluation that it erred in upholding those two points, and thus erred in dismissing the appellant’s application with costs. The court <i>a quo</i> also erred by refusing to accept Berkhout’s evidence since it was never an issue between the parties before the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Condonation application</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[125]   In an affidavit in support of the application for condonation for the alleged non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, the deponent to the affidavit, a legal practitioner, pointed out that the appellant was under no obligation to enter into security for the respondents’ costs as contemplated by rule 14(2). The appellant nevertheless undertook to furnish security in the sum of N$150 000 should this court hold that the provisions of rule 14(2) are applicable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[126]   This argument was developed as follows by the deponent to the supporting affidavit:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          In paragraph 1 of the appeal it was stated that the appeal was launched upon the basis that the court <i>a quo</i> constructively refused the relief sought by the appellant. In paragraph 12 of the notice of appeal it was stated that since there was no written judgment to which the appellant’s grounds of appeal could be directed, the grounds of appeal would be the appellant’s relief sought in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          Rule 14(2) provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘If the execution of a judgment is suspended pending appeal, the appellant must, before lodging copies of the record, enter into good and sufficient security for the respondent’s costs of appeal, unless – . . . .’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[127]   The lodging of the appeal could therefore not have had the effect of suspending any ‘judgment’, which did not exist when the appeal was lodged.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[128]   It was stated that the appellant relied on legal advice from both its instructing and instructed legal practitioner to the effect that, given the special circumstances of this matter, rule 14(2) found no application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[129]   Once the appeal was lodged on the above basis such basis governed the foundation background that regulated to what extent the appellant had to comply with the various rules of this court. The degree and the extent of the appellant’s obligations in terms of the rules was then cast and set, so it was contended.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[130]   When the court <i>a quo</i> handed down its judgment subsequent to appellant’s noting of appeal, the appellant made its position clear in the ‘supplementary’ notice of appeal filed on 3 July 2020, that a delay of six years in the granting of a judgment, must be construed as a constructive refusal of the relief sought by the appellant, that appellant had not abandoned the appeal based on constructive refusal to grant relief and that the supplementary notice of appeal was not intended to substitute the earlier notice of appeal but to supplement its contents. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[131]   The deponent to the supporting affidavit prays, that in the event that this court finds that the provisions of rule 14(2) do apply, for condonation for its late and/or non-compliance with its provisions on the basis of the following grounds:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      Having pursued its cause of action for a period of ten years, with substantial legal expenditure in both the Netherlands and in Namibia, the appellant does not wish to stumble over a technical hurdle which may cause its pursuit to fail without the merits of the pursuit ever having been properly considered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      When the heads of argument on behalf of the respondents were received, deponent of the affidavit in support of the condonation application, became aware of the fact that respondents intended making a substantive issue about the provisions of rule 14(2), the deponent liaised with both Berkhout and counsel for appellant in Cape Town for purposes of establishing whether such issue could not be resolved prior to the hearing of the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      Since the deponent had to dispatch the respondents’ heads of argument and the bundle of authorities to appellant’s counsel in Cape Town, counsel only became aware of the full extent thereof on Friday, 4 March 2022.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      Both the deponent and appellant’s counsel subsequently on 4, 7 and 8 March 2022 communicated with Berkhout in an attempt to resolve the issue. It was pointed out that any decision to make available the sum of N$150 000 as security for costs, had to be approved through a special process in the hierarchy of the appellant in the Netherlands, which delayed the final outcome of the decision until 9 March 2022, when it was resolved to furnish the amount of N$150 000 and deponent to the supporting affidavit was informed thereof by email from Berkhout at 18h31 on 9 March 2022.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      The deponent undertook to present a proper and appropriate security bond as soon as the amount transferred from the Netherlands would show on the bank account of her legal firm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[132]   It must be stated that the bond of security was filed with the registrar of this court on the same day the appeal was heard. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[133]   In respect of the further points taken by the respondents in their heads of argument, the following explanations were given: firstly, in respect of the contention that appellant did not comply with rule 7(1), the time frames contemplated by this sub-rule are calculated from the date of postulated ‘judgment or order’. There could be no such judgment or order where the appeal, as in this instance, is based upon a constructive refusal of relief. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[134]   This court was referred to paragraph 17 of the respondents’ heads of argument where the following appears:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘Should the appellant’s “notice of appeal” dated 31 January 2020 be accepted as such in terms of rule 7(3)(a) of the Rules of this Court, the appellant was required to lodge its ground of appeal within 14 days from 7 May 2020, that is no later than 16 June 2020.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[135]   It was contended that this statement is misconceived for the following reasons:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The filing of the notice of appeal of 31 January 2020 was not a step as contemplated by rule 7(3)(a), the latter which provides for the situation ‘where an appeal is noted against an order where reasons have not been given’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      In the present case there was no order, at all.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      The notice of appeal commenced a process against a constructive refusal to grant relief in respect of which the rules of court do not provide any time frames.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[136]   Secondly, in paragraph 18 of the heads of argument of the respondents, the following was stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘If the supplementary notice of appeal dated 03 July 2020 is to be accepted as the notice of appeal, it had to be lodged within 21 days from 27 May 2020, that is no later than 25 June 2020. It was in fact lodged on 03 July 2020, this is out of time on both scores.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[137]   It was repeated by the deponent to the supporting affidavit that the notice filed on 3 July 2020 merely <i>supplemented</i> and not substituted the earlier notice of appeal filed on 31 January 2020.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[138]   However, it was submitted, if the submission in paragraph 18 of the respondents’ heads of argument were to be accepted as correct, the lodgement of the notice on 3 July 2020 would have been six days late, that such lateness is only marginal and could not have caused any prejudice to respondents. The deponent prayed for condonation for the marginal late filing of six days. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[139]   The deponent to the supporting affidavit dealt with the prospects of success on appeal and contended, based on these prospects, that the granting of condonation with the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, favour the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[140]   It is not necessary for me to repeat the contentions of the appellant in respect of the prospects of success on appeal, since this aspect has already been dealt with earlier in this judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[141]   It remains only now to briefly state the approach adopted by this court, in considering condonation applications. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[142]   In <i>Balzer v Vries</i><a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the approach was explained as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[20]     It is well settled that an application for condonation is required to meet two requisites of good cause before he or she can succeed in such an application. These entail firstly establishing a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and secondly satisfying the court that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[143]   The explanation must be ‘full, detailed and accurate’ to enable the court to understand clearly the reasons for it.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[144]   A number of factors relevant to the determination of a condonation application, tabulated in <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build,</i><a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>include <i>inter alia</i> the reasonableness of the explanation offered, the <i>bona fides</i> of the application, the prospects of success on the merits of the case, and the prejudice suffered by the other litigants as a result of the non-compliance.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[145]   It is further trite that good prospects of success may compensate for a poor explanation and vice versa. This does not mean that the explanation provided by the appellant is a poor one, on the contrary, as will be apparent from the reasons herein below, it was reasonable in the circumstances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[146]   The explanation by the applicant was that because of the peculiar circumstances of this case, rule 14(2), requiring the appellant to enter into good and sufficient security for the respondent’s costs of appeal, does not apply. This was so since at the time of the lodging of the notice of appeal there was no judgment or order from the court <i>a quo</i>. Since a judgment or order of court was a condition precedent, which was absent, appellant was advised by its legal practitioners that it was unnecessary to provide security for costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[147]   I agree that the appellant was faced with exceptional circumstances, since it is very rare for a litigant to wait for six years without obtaining a judgment from a court. The legal representative of the respondents conceded during argument before us, that even a period of 39 months, calculated by the court <i>a quo</i> as the delay in pronouncing judgment, is an unreasonable period of delay. The question which comes to mind, if a litigant finds himself or herself, in the shoes of the appellant is, until when was the appellant required to wait for the delivery of a judgment?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[148]   I am of the view that it was not unreasonable for the appellant in the circumstances to have decided to lodge an appeal on the basis of constructive refusal of the relief prayed for, especially in view of the fact that when the judgment was eventually given the court <i>a quo</i> provided no reason for the delay, only an apology. The Rules of this Court, for obvious reasons, do not prescribe a procedure in such an exceptional case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[149]   I am of the view that it is not necessary for this court to make a definitive determination on the question on the merits, ie whether or not the provisions of rule 14(2), are applicable in the present circumstances. What is required is whether this court is satisfied that the appellant has met the two requirements of good cause. I am of the view that the explanation provided on behalf of the appellant, is a reasonable and acceptable explanation which enables this court to understand why the security for costs was not provided as prescribed by rule 14(2). Where the rules do not regulate the conduct of a litigant, as in this instance, logically one cannot describe the failure to lodge security for costs as non-compliance with the rule.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[150]   The fact of the matter is that security for costs had been lodged with the registrar of this court, even though the prescribed procedure, which may involve a decision of the registrar of this court, had not strictly speaking been adhered to, the respondents do not suffer any prejudice. In my view, the late lodging of the security for costs should in the unique circumstances of this case be condoned. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[151]   In respect of the submission that the provisions of rules 7(1) and 7(3)(a) had not been complied with, the appellant had adequately explained the reason for the non-compliance. Both these subsections refer to a judgment or order as a <i>sine quo non</i> for compliance with these subsections. These subsections do not provide any time frames which guide a litigant, in circumstances where there is no judgment or order from the trial court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[152]   The submission on behalf of the respondents that there was non-compliance with the provisions of these subrules is misconceived since it was impossible for the appellant in the absence of a judgment or order from the trial court, to comply with the provisions of these subsections. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[153]   The second requirement of prospects of success in respect of the merits of the application on appeal was dealt with by the appellant. In view of the discussion hereinbefore in respect of the points <i>in limine</i>, considered by the court <i>a quo</i>, it should in my view be apparent that the prospects of success on appeal are excellent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[154]   To the extent that it is necessary for this court to condone the conduct of the appellant in the prosecution of its appeal for the ‘non-compliance’ with the Rules of this Court, such conduct is hereby condoned. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[155]   In the result the following order is made:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The appeal is upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The finding of the court <i>a quo</i> dismissing the application is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(i)     The judgment granted against the respondents by the District Court of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, on 22 February 2012 is ordered and declared enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, jointly and severally.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(ii)     The respondents are ordered to pay the appellant, jointly and severally:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                    </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The amount of €398 081,04 reflecting the capital portion of the applicant’s claim;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The amount of €4529,17 reflecting the legal costs payable to applicant by the respondents, arising from proceedings in the District Court of Rotterdam.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.95pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(i)   €199 040,52 representing the first rental amount that fell due to applicant 15 days after the date of invoice date in terms of which the due date for the payment of the first invoice was 4 June 2011;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.95pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(ii)   €199 040,52 representing the second rental that fell due on 4 July 2011 to date of the order made by the Honourable court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      Interest at the <i>mora</i> rate of Namibia namely 20% as the interest rate applicable from the date of the order of this court to all amounts ordered to be paid to the applicant, calculated from the date of such order until the date of final payment of all such amounts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      The costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant in Namibia, on the scale as between party and party; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(f)       <i>Mora</i> interest on any amount of costs awarded to applicant, calculated from the date of the <i>allocatur</i> of the Taxing Master to date of payment thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(g)      The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the costs on appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, such costs to include the costs of one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MAINGA JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">LIEBENBERG AJA</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPEARANCES</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPELLANT:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">T A Barnard</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">Instructed by ENSafrica | Namibia (Incorporated as LorentzAngula Inc.)</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">FIRST and SECOND RESPONDENTS:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">G Narib (with him T Muhongo)</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">Instructed by Etzold-Duvenhage</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoBodyText" 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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> And signed in his capacity as Executive Director – Head of Administration Petroholland Oil Refining (Pty) Ltd (the second respondent).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Points (a) and (d) were not persisted with in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><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-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Also referred to as the Apostille Convention.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> A certified copy of the summons together with exhibits annexed thereto.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> A certified copy of the judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><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>Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa &amp; others v Tshabalala-Msimang</i> <i>&amp; another NNO; New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd</i> <i>v Minister of Health &amp; another</i> 2005 (3) SA 238 (SCA).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> These findings are referred to in para 50 of this judgment.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Kauesa v Minister of Home Affairs &amp; others</i> 1995 NR 175 (SC) at 183E-G.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> See also <i>Teek v The President of the Republic of Namibia</i> 2015 (1) NR 58 (SC) para 30.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="" id="_ftn10"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Fischer &amp; another v Ramahlele &amp; others</i> 2014 (4) SA 614 (SCA).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="" id="_ftn11"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd </i>1949 SA 1155 (T) at 1162-1163.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="" id="_ftn12"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Engar &amp; others v Omar Salem Essa Trust </i>1970 (1) SA 77 NPD at 83D-G.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="" id="_ftn13"><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:11.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd</span></span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634I-635A.</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="" id="_ftn14"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> In this penultimate paragraph Berkhout stated that if payment of EUR 435 518,65 has been received by Standic (the appellant) not later than 8 March 2012 at 17h00, the appellant was prepared to discuss in good faith with Petroholland (second respondent) the terms of a new agreement for storage capacity for 30 000 cbm.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="" id="_ftn15"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Di Savino v Nedbank</i> <i>Namibia Ltd</i> 2012 (2) NR 507 (SC) at 518A-C.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="" id="_ftn16"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Balzer v Vries</i> 2015 (2) NR 547 (SC) at 551J-552A.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="" id="_ftn17"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Beukes &amp; another v South West Africa Building Society (SWABOU) &amp; others </i>(SA 10/2006) [2010] NASC (5 November 2010) para 13.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="" id="_ftn18"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build</i> 2014 (1) NR 187 (SC) para 5.</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-5391116b0724505f7c9a9258fc0a34bd2f23d5d792717ebb9cd4c37e1f7f70a8"> <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 style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><img alt="Coat of Arms.bmp" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="" style="width:100.2pt; height:104.4pt" /></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">CASE NO: SA 9/2020</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAMIBIA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">STANDIC BV</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">Appellant</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">PETROHOLLAND HOLDING (PTY) LTD</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">First Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">PETROHOLAND OIL REFINING (PTY) LTD</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">Second Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:434px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><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">RENE JOHANNES CHRISTIAAN WILHELMUS KESSELS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:173px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><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">Third Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        MAINGA JA, HOFF JA and LIEBENBERG AJA</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard:          16 March 2022 </span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered:    23 September 2022</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><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">Summary:    </span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application which sought an order declaring a default judgment granted against the respondents in a foreign court (a Dutch court) enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, the court <i>a quo</i> dismissed the application on the basis of two points raised <i>in limine</i> by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in upholding the first point <i>in limine</i> that the documents on which the appellant relied on for the default judgment had not been authenticated. The court <i>a quo</i> impermissibly relied on a bare and unsubstantiated allegation by the respondents to this effect, in spite of uncontested evidence by the appellant that the documents relied on had indeed been properly authenticated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in upholding the second point <i>in limine</i> that the default judgment pronounced in the District Court of Rotterdam had not been final and conclusive. The court <i>a quo</i> misinterpreted the uncontroverted expert evidence presented on behalf of the appellant, and on which evidence the court <i>a quo</i> itself relied on for its decision, to the effect that the default judgment granted, was final, definitive and unassailable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respect of disputes of fact in application proceedings, a court must establish whether or not there is a real dispute of fact. A bare or unsubstantiated denial of material averments cannot be regarded as sufficient to defeat an applicant’s right to secure relief on affidavit. Enough must be stated, by a respondent, to enable the court to ascertain whether the denials are not fictitious or intended merely to delay. If the statement constituting the denial is an inference from the facts, the affidavit in question must at least disclose facts supporting the inference. A court must not permit simple and blatant stratagems of denial to circumvent its effective functioning.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 inappropriate and unfair for a judicial officer to unilaterally or <i>mero motu</i> make findings on matters not put before him or her either in evidence, or oral or written submissions by a party, and in circumstances where the party against whom the judgment is given had not been given the opportunity to address the court upon such issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">As a general rule the appeal court is disinclined to allow a party to raise a point for the first time on appeal but has a discretion to allow or disallow such new point; where it is covered by the pleadings; where it would be unfair to the other party; and where the other party would have conducted its case differently had the point been raised earlier in litigation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 appeal against the dismissal of the application in the court <i>a quo</i>, is upheld and the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">___________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPEAL JUDGMENT</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">____________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA (MAINGA JA and LIEBENBERG AJA concurring):</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]      On 15 November 2012 the appellant (applicant <i>a quo</i>) launched an application in the High Court (court <i>a quo</i>) in which the applicant sought an order declaring and ordering that the judgment granted against the respondents by the District Court of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, on 22 February 2012 is enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, jointly and severally.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]      In this regard, the applicant (appellant) sought an order directing the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the applicant:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The amount of €398 081,04 reflecting the capital portion of the applicant’s claim;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The amount of €4529,17 reflecting the legal costs payable to applicant by the respondents, arising from proceedings in the District Court of Rotterdam;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(i)     €199 040,52 representing the first rental amount that fell due to applicant 15 days after the date of invoice date in terms of which the due date for the payment of the first invoice was 4 June 2011;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(ii)     €199 040,52 representing the second rental that fell due on 4 July 2011 to date of the order made by the Honourable court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      Interest at the <i>mora</i> rate of Namibia namely 20% as the interest rate applicable from the date of the order of this court to all amounts ordered to be paid to the applicant, calculated from the date of such order until the date of final payment of all such amounts;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      The costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant in Namibia, on the scale as between party and party; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(f)       <i>Mora</i> interest on any amount of costs awarded to applicant, calculated from the date of the <i>allocatur</i> of the Taxing Master to date of payment thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]      The court <i>a quo</i> dismissed applicant’s application and ordered applicant to pay first and second respondents’ costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]      For reasons not relevant to the present appeal, the third respondent no longer plays any role in the proceedings. No relief is sought against him, neither is he cited as a party to the appeal and is referred to purely for purposes of lending context to the contents of appellant’s appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]      The application was opposed by the respondents who raised six points <i>in limine</i>. The court <i>a quo</i> in its judgment dealt only with the following points. The first point, according to the court <i>a quo</i>, was that the appellant’s documents which constituted an essential element of the appellant’s cause of action, were not authenticated as required by the rules of the court <i>a quo</i>; secondly, that some of the documents which formed part of the appellant’s evidence and pleadings were not translated from the Dutch language to the English language; thirdly, the documents which were translated were not translated by a sworn translator of the court <i>a quo</i>; and fourthly, that the foreign judgment relied upon was not final, but merely a preliminary order which was obtained by default in Rotterdam.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]      In respect of the first point <i>in limine</i>, the court <i>a quo</i> found firstly, that the founding affidavit in support of the application, by one Frank Berkhout (Berkhout), for the reasons provided, did not need to be authenticated. Secondly, it was found that the signatures on the judgment on which the appellant relied on, purporting to be a judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, were not authenticated. This point was upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]      In respect of the second point <i>in limine</i> the court <i>a quo</i> found that the relevant documents attached to the founding affidavit had indeed been translated from the Dutch language to the English language, and did not uphold this point. The third point <i>in limine</i> was also disallowed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]      In respect of the fourth point <i>in limine</i> the court <i>a quo</i> held that the judgment relied on by the appellant was not final and conclusive, and this point was upheld. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]      The appeal lies not only against the upholding of aforementioned points <i>in limine</i>, but also against a finding by the court <i>a quo</i>, that it ‘is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his client and also provide evidence and expert evidence in the case he has taken upon himself to be a party to’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]    In support of the application Berkhout, practising as a legal practitioner in the Netherlands, in his founding affidavit set out his qualifications and experience and explained the history of the present litigation in the Netherlands and referred to subsequent correspondence addressed to the second respondent in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]    It is common cause that the third respondent was at the time the contract had been concluded between the second respondent and the appellant, the chief executive officer of both first and second respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]    Berkhout stated that the appellant and second respondent concluded a written agreement in the Netherlands on 20 June 2011 in terms of which the appellant made certain storage facilities for liquid goods, in bulk, available to the second respondent for a period of 12 months at appellant’s terminal at Dordrecht. The first respondent is the holding company of the second respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]    Berkhout stated that the second respondent became liable to appellant for payment in the amount of €398 081,04 in respect of the rental facilities for the months June and July 2011, charged at the sum of €199 040,52 per month. The first respondent, it was averred, expressly undertook and accepted liability of the second respondent to pay the said amounts to the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]    According to Berkhout, the respondents provided numerous unequivocal undertakings to pay the amount of €398 081,04 to the appellant, but failed to do so. The appellant thereupon cancelled the agreement, and initiated proceedings against the respondents, jointly and severally, in the District Court of Rotterdam, for the payment of the outstanding debt. The joint and several liability of each respondent was based on, in the case of:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                    </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      the first respondent, an undertaking that such company would be liable and responsible for the payment of the amounts due to the appellant;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      second respondent, the provisions of the written agreement; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      the third respondent (Kessels), his misconduct in his capacity as chief executive officer of the first two respondents, for which liability the Dutch law makes provision in a similar manner to which the Namibian law provides for such liability in terms of s 430 of the Namibian Companies Act 28 of 2004.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]    Berkhout stated that a provisional or <i>interim</i> judgment for the debt due to the appellant was granted by the District Court of Rotterdam on 22 February 2012 jointly and severally against the respondents, after a hearing on 15 February 2012 from which proceedings the respondents intentionally absented themselves. The proceedings against the respondents were not further defended by themselves thereafter, whereupon the <i>interim</i> order against them became final in nature. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    The appellant now seeks to enforce this judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam against the respondents, in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    Berkhout further elaborated that in respect of the contents of the exhibits annexed to the summons, neither of the respondents disputed liability to the appellant for the amount owing, and at best for the respondents, the contents of such exhibits presented numerous and repetitive endeavours to achieve a respite for the payment of the debt owing without seeking to present any reason or grounds why they should be exonerated, excused or exempted from liability to pay.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    Berkhout stated that the respondents at no stage indicated that they may wish to defend the proceedings against them (in the District Court of Rotterdam), or that they had any defence to the claims forming the subject matter of such proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]    In addition to the capital amount, according to Berkhout, judgment was granted against the respondents in respect of an amount of €4529,17 reflecting the legal costs payable by the respondents, and in terms of Dutch law the respondents incurred liability for the payment of ‘statutory commercial interest’ to the appellant at the rate of 8% per annum.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[20]    Berkhout in his founding affidavit also referred to and discussed the principles relating to the enforcement of a foreign judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]    Berkhout stated that it clearly appears from a letter dated 14 February 2012 addressed to himself by a certain Hiskia Auchab,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> that the respondents had full knowledge of the court hearing on 15 February 2012 and that they had wilfully and intentionally caused a judgment by default to be given against them by express prohibition issued to Kessels against attending the proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    Berkhout stated that, on the assumption that neither of the respondents knew about the proceedings on 15 February 2012, each one would have been at liberty, for a period of eight weeks after the date of judgment, or after they had become aware thereof, to oppose the claims of the appellant by duly instituted ‘<i>verzet</i>’ proceedings, however, no such further proceedings at the behest of the respondents eventuated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[23]    Instead, according to Berkhout, by way of a letter dated 5 March 2012 the respondents reacted with further proposals of new business ventures that would have facilitated their financial ability to pay the appellant’s claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    An opposing affidavit was deposed to by Sidney Wilfred Martin (Martin) on behalf of the respondents. Martin stated that he is a director of the first and second respondents and has been duly authorised to depose to the opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    <i>In limine</i>, the point was raised that the application of the appellant was fatally defective in the following respects:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      the ‘composite court process’ for the purpose of enforcement of a foreign judgment is not a ‘notice of motion document’, but a ‘provisional sentence document’;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      the foreign judgment relied upon is not final as is evident from the affidavit of Berkhout (paragraph 48);</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      the foreign judgment relied upon is <i>ex facie</i> the record not a liquid document as is evident from the affidavit of Berkhout (paragraph 48);</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      the document (foreign judgment) does not inform the respondents (a) of the consequence of their failure to pay the amount claimed, and (b) of the respondents’ right to demand security for the restitution thereof should they pay the amount;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      all the documents which constitute an essential element of the cause of action in terms of a claim based on foreign documents ‘must be annexed to the action’, must be true copies, and must be duly authenticated – none of the appellant’s documents were authenticated and were further in a foreign language to the first and second respondents. Therefore the application does not disclose or reveal a cause of action or give rise to an enforceable claim.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    In the answering affidavit, the respondents contested the appellant’s reliance on Dutch law and appellant’s reliance on conduct by the third respondent which may have the effect of binding first and second respondents. The first and second respondents denied liability in any amount owing to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    In his replying affidavit, Berkhout made the point that, despite the fact that both Martin and the third respondent are currently directors of the first and second respondents, and despite the fact that the third respondent must have been in a position to deal with the contents of the application papers of the appellant, the first and second respondents elected, most likely for tactical reasons, to cause their answering papers to be deposed to by Martin, with whom the appellant had no dealings whatsoever, and whose evidence as set out in the answering affidavit clearly amounts to pure hearsay. Furthermore, it appears that the third respondent was specifically not chosen as the party to respond to the appellant’s founding papers, to enable Martin to raise the objection that the documents relied upon by the appellant are in a foreign language in which he is not proficient.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    It was averred by Berkhout that Martin cannot have any personal knowledge of any of the events, facts or circumstances set out in the founding affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]    It was pointed out by Berkhout, that the fact that the first and second respondents (in the answering affidavit) ‘<i>contest their liability</i>’ for the relief claimed by the appellant is the first occasion during the period of 27 September 2011 to 22 February 2013 that any of the respondents denied their liability – that such ‘contesting’ is spurious in nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]    The appellant in its replying affidavit fully dealt with all the allegations contained in the answering affidavit of the respondents. It is not necessary to record all those replies since there were only two points <i>in limine</i> upheld by the court <i>a quo</i> and which are relevant for the determination of this appeal, namely firstly the point upheld that the judgment relied on by the appellant, in particular the signatures on such judgment were not authenticated, and secondly, that the judgment was not final and conclusive.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    In respect of the point raised that the judgment was not authenticated, the appellant made the following points:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      Martin in his answering affidavit stated that . . . ‘the copies of the documents annexed must be true copies and correspond with the originals in material respects . . .’, without any allegation that the applicant’s papers failed to comply with this requirement.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The allegation by Martin that: ‘None of the applicant’s documents are authenticated’, is incorrect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The appellant referred to rule 63 of the repealed Rules of the High Court of Namibia which deals with the authentication of documents executed outside Namibia for use within Namibia, and referred to the circumstances under which any document executed at any place outside Namibia shall be deemed to be sufficiently authenticated for the purpose of use in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      In terms of Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents,<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> to which both the Netherlands and Belgium are State parties, and to which Namibia acceded on 30 January 2001, any public document ‘emanating from an authority or an official connected with the courts or tribunals of the State, including those emanating from . . . a clerk of a court or a process-server (‘<i>huissier de justice</i>’)’ and ‘administrative documents’ are exempted from legalisation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    It was pointed out that both annexures FB 1<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> and FB 2<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> to the founding affidavit are documents of such nature, ie documents referred to in paragraph [31] (c) above. The judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam bears the official stamp of the ‘Griffier Rechtbank, Rotterdam’ as well as the signature of the ‘Griffier’, together with the confirmation that the judgment had been given by ‘Meester A.F.L. Geerdes in the presence of Meester H.C. Fraaij, clerk of the court, and was pronounced in public on 22 February 2012’, and that the document was signed by both Messrs Geerdes and Fraaij.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    It was further pointed out, and correctly so, that apart from the bold assertion that ‘none of the documents’ have been authenticated, Martin’s affidavit contains no assertion of whatever nature, that either or any of the documents are not what the appellant claims them to be; or that they had been forged; or that the appellant had tampered with the documents in a manner to misrepresent the contents thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    In respect of the second point that the judgment relied upon was not final, the appellant pointed out that his founding affidavit is replete with repetitive contentions, assertions and proof that the foreign judgment relied upon became a final judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    Thus, even the paragraph upon which Martin ‘disingenuously’ relied upon for purposes of claiming that Berkhout, himself, suggested that the judgment is not a final one (paragraph 48), contains assertions directly contrary to the conclusion of Martin that the judgment remained a preliminary order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[36]    The appellant sought an order directing Martin to pay the costs of the application, jointly and severally with the first and second respondents, <i>de bonis propriis</i>, on the scale as between attorney and own client, on the basis that it appears that the first and second respondents are entities of no substantial financial substance, against whom the appellant would most likely not be able to execute any costs order in its favour. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Judgment of the court <i>a quo</i></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[37]    Before dealing with the points <i>in limine</i> raised by the respondents, the presiding judge found it necessary to deal with a matter which caused him ‘great discomfort’, and that was the fact that, according to the presiding judge, Berkhout who launched these proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> and who deposed to the affidavit on behalf of the appellant, is the same legal practitioner who represented the appellant in the Netherlands, and the same legal representative who instructed the local representatives of the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[38]    The presiding judge <i>a quo</i> was of the view that Berkhout assumed three roles, namely, he instituted the proceedings, deposed to the founding affidavit, and testified as an expert witness on behalf of the appellant. The critical question which arose in these circumstances, troubling the presiding judge, was whether the court <i>a quo</i> could accept the expert witness testimony of Berkhout.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[39]    The presiding officer <i>a quo</i> referred to authority which requires that a legal representative should, <i>inter alia</i>, conduct his practice with a high degree of independence, and that an expert witness should provide a court with an objective and unbiased opinion, based on his or her experience – a person who does not assume the role of advocate.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[40]    The court <i>a quo</i> concluded that Berkhout could not have performed three different roles without overstepping the boundaries of the different roles, since (by way of an example) the duty of an expert witness to give non-partisan and objective testimony is inconsistent with an attorney-client relationship and for those reasons the presiding judge <i>a quo</i> was ‘disinclined to accept the expert testimony of Berkhout’. The presiding judge <i>a quo</i> stated that Berkhout appears to be ‘well qualified’, but despite his reluctance to accept Berkhout’s expert testimony, he would proceed to consider the points <i>in limine</i> (on the very same rejected expert evidence of Berkhout).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[41]    In respect of the point <i>in limine</i> that ‘none of the Applicant’s documents are authenticated’, the court a quo correctly pointed out that it is not sufficient merely to question the authenticity of documents without specifying the document or directing the court and the opponent to the document that is being assailed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[42]    The court <i>a quo</i> then proceeded to consider the judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, annexure ‘FB 2’, and referred to the page where the judgment concluded as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘This judgment has been given by Meester A.F.L. Geerdes, in the presence of Meester H.C. Fraaij, clerk of the court, and pronounced in public on 22 February 2012 1862/676</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            [signed] illegible                                                                                  [signed] illegible'</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[43]    The court <i>a quo</i> found that the signatures on the document ‘purporting’ to be the judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, which Berkhout attached to his affidavit, are not legible; that all that the court is informed is that the document was signed but as to who signed the document, the court <i>a quo</i> is expected to assume that Geerdes and Fraaij signed the default judgment. Therefore, the court <i>a quo</i> found that ‘there is merit in the respondents’ complaint that the signatures on the summons were not authenticated’. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[44]    In respect of the point <i>in limine</i> that the judgment relied on was not final, the court <i>a quo</i> firstly referred to Martin’s answering affidavit in which Martin stated that the foreign judgment is not final as is evident from paragraph 48 of Berkhout’s affidavit where Berkhout stated that the judgment is a preliminary order that was obtained by default. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[45]    The court <i>a quo</i> then proceeded to refer to the founding affidavit where Berkhout discussed the finality of the default judgment granted by the District Court of Rotterdam. In this affidavit the court <i>a quo</i> pointed out that Berkhout stated that a party may seek preliminary relief in terms of Art 254 of the Dutch Civil Procedure Code (the Code) in all matters which require immediate court intervention, normally referred to as ‘preliminary relief proceedings’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[46]    The court <i>a quo</i> referred to where Berkhout (in his affidavit) pointed out that in terms of the Code, a default judgment may be opposed by issuing ‘<i>verzet summons</i>’ setting out the grounds of opposition by a defendant before the same court which granted the order, and that the Code does not make provision for any condonation proceedings if the ‘<i>verzet summons</i>’ was not timeously lodged, in which case the preliminary order then becomes final, definitive and unassailable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[47]    The court <i>a quo</i> pointed out that Berkhout stated that in the present proceedings the respondents were informed of the judgment already on 23 February 2012 but despite this knowledge, the respondents did not make any endeavours to either appeal or launch ‘<i>verzet proceedings</i>’ and as a result, the preliminary order became a final default judgment. The court <i>a quo</i> also referred to the founding affidavit where Berkhout stated that there was proper service on all the parties, prior to the granting of the order by the court and that proof of service was attached to his affidavit. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[48]    The court <i>a quo</i> then continued to discuss the legal principles relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments by stating that foreign judgments are not directly enforceable in Namibia unless certain requirements are met, <i>inter alia</i>, that the judgment must be final and conclusive and must not have become superannuated – that a judgment is deemed to be final when it is not capable of alteration by the court which granted it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[49]    The court <i>a quo</i>, applying the legal principles to the facts, stated that the evidence (the expert testimony of Berkhout) made it quite clear that a preliminary or interlocutory order made by the District Court of Rotterdam, the existence of the debt may, despite the existence of the order, between the same parties be afterwards contested in that court, and it may be declared that there existed no obligation to pay the debt at all. The court <i>a quo</i> was of the view that such a judgment, preliminary or interlocutory order cannot be regarded as final and conclusive, since ‘it cannot be disputed that judgment, preliminary interlocutory order is capable of being altered by the same court that has issued or granted it’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[50]    The court <i>a quo</i> continued and stated the following in paragraphs 54 and 55:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[54]     The fact that a defendant, as in this case the respondents, did not sue out ‘verzet summons’ to set aside the default judgment granted against them is irrelevant and does not affect the question whether or not the judgment is final and conclusive. I therefore uphold the point <i>in limine</i> by the respondents. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for me to consider whether the Rotterdam District Court had jurisdiction over the first and second respondents. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            [55]      For the avoidance of doubt I make the following findings. It is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his client and also provide evidence and expert evidence in the case he has taken upon himself to be a party to. Secondly I find that the purported default judgment granted by the Rotterdam District Court is not properly authenticated as required by Rule 63 of the now repealed rules of this Court and such a failure is fatal. Thirdly the judgment on which Standic relies is not final and conclusive. For these reasons I will dismiss the applicant’s application</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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Notices of appeal</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[51]    There are divergent contentions on which date the aforementioned application was set down for hearing. The appellant in its notice of appeal contended that the matter was set down for hearing on 6 and 7 February 2014 when arguments on behalf of the parties were presented to the court <i>a quo</i>; that judgment was reserved on                  7 February 2014, and that the presiding judge indicated that he would deliver his judgment in March 2014.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[52]    In the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> (delivered on 27 May 2020), it was stated that arguments in respect of the appellant’s application were heard on 7 February 2017 with the promise to deliver the judgment not later than six months from that date – ie around September 2017. It is common cause that the judge <i>a quo</i> failed to keep his promise.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[53]    Against this background the appellant on 31 January 2020 filed a notice of appeal in the absence of a judgment by the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[54]    In its notice of appeal it was stated that the basis on which the appeal was launched, was that the court <i>a quo</i> constructively refused the relief sought by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[55]    It was stated that despite the lapse of six years from the date upon which judgment had been reserved, and despite written requests urging the presiding judge to give his urgent attention to the preparation and handing down of the judgment, this has not been done.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[56]    The appellant avers that, in view of the circumstances, the failure of the judge to deliver his judgment in the six year period, amounts to constructive refusal of the relief sought, and that the appeal was being pursued upon the principles enunciated in the matter of <i>Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa &amp; others v Tshabalala-Msimang</i> <i>&amp; another NNO; New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd</i> <i>v Minister of Health &amp; another </i>(<i>New Clicks</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> in which it was held that an unreasonable delay in pronouncing judgment upon relief sought by a litigant could under appropriate circumstances, amount to a constructive refusal of such relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[57]    It was further pointed out that since there is no written judgment to which the appellant’s grounds of appeal can be directed, the grounds of appeal will be the grounds upon which the appellant sought its relief in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[58]    In a supplementary notice of appeal (filed on 3 July 2020) the appellant stated that if the contention of constructive refusal were not to be upheld, the appellant will in the supplementary grounds of appeal demonstrate that the court <i>a quo</i> in any event erred in its May 2020 judgment, justifying the setting aside of that judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[59]    The appellant referred to the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> dated 27 May 2020 summarised (at paragraph 55) its own findings limited to three findings.<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[60]    The appellant avers that the first finding could not have any effect on the outcome of the appellant’s application in the court <i>a quo</i>, whilst the second and third findings are demonstrably incorrect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[61]    In the supplementary notice of appeal, the appellant further elaborated on the contention that the findings of the court <i>a quo</i> were erroneous, and it is not necessary to repeat them here.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Submissions on appeal</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the appellant</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[62]    The legal practitioner on behalf of the appellant confirmed in oral argument as well as in his heads of argument, the ground of appeal in respect of constructive refusal, based on certain authorities cited, and a passage in the judgment, acknowledged by the presiding judge that ‘. . . it is unfair and unreasonable to parties who approached court to wait for more than three years for the pronouncement by the court on their dispute’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[63]    It was submitted that the appeal should be based on the fact that the court <i>a quo</i> constructively refused the relief sought by the appellant and that this constructive refusal was eventually vindicated by the judgment of 27 May 2020 refusing the relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[64]    It was submitted that the eventual judgment substantially reduced the grounds of appeal of the appellant as articulated in the first notice of appeal, in that the judgment relied upon a limited number of issues as grounds for the refusal of the relief sought by the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[65]    In respect of the first finding in paragraph 55 of the judgment to the effect that it is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his or her client, it was submitted that in this jurisdiction there is no complete prohibition upon an attorney deposing to an affidavit launching an application, and although the courts have expressed their displeasure at such conduct, there may be exceptional circumstances, as in the instant case, where a legal practitioner will be obliged to make a statement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[66]    However, still on this finding, it was submitted that it was not raised by the respondents in argument before the court <i>a quo</i>. In addition, this point was not taken by Martin in his answering affidavit – this was not an issue. Neither of the respondents, it was submitted, took the point that the institution of the application was irregular, and appellant’s counsel was at no stage prior to the delivery of the judgment in May 2020, required by the court <i>a quo</i> to address the issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[67]    It was submitted that it was not open to the court <i>a quo</i> to unilaterally or <i>mero motu</i> make findings about the credibility and acceptability of the evidence of Berkhout where the respondents did not deem it necessary or appropriate to impugn such evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[68]    It was submitted that it is constitutionally unfair to base a judgment upon an issue in respect of which the party against whom the judgment is given had not been given the opportunity to address the court upon such issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[69]    In respect of the finding that the default judgment granted was not properly authenticated, raised by Martin in his answering affidavit, it was pointed out by counsel that evidence contained in the replying affidavit on behalf of the appellant dealt with this finding by the court <i>a quo</i>, in which Berkhout stated that the authentication of the default judgment complied with the provisions of rule 63(2), and in addition thereto Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961 the default judgment in the circumstances is exempted from legalisation. It was submitted that the court <i>a quo</i> did not deal with this evidence of Berkhout but simply dismissed the application upon points the court did not deal with.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[70]    It was further submitted on this issue, that there was not the slightest suggestion that the default judgment was alleged not to be what it was – no objection was ever lodged against the validity of that judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[71]    In respect of the finding that the default judgment was not final and conclusive, it was submitted that the court <i>a quo</i> quoted extensively from the evidence of Berkhout in which he explained the circumstances under which preliminary proceedings became final and conclusive, without raising a single word of criticism against the accuracy and persuasiveness thereof. This evidence of Berkhout, it was submitted, did not leave any room for the court <i>a quo</i> to conclude in paragraph 53 of the judgment that the default judgment relied upon was capable of being altered by the same court which has granted it and on that basis formed the view that the preliminary order cannot be regarded as final and conclusive.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[72]    It was submitted that the heads of argument on behalf of the respondents contained no submissions made in respect of all the issues raised by the court <i>a quo</i>, but instead, counsel for the respondents dealt with a brand new issue and that is the contention that the foreign judgment offends public policy in Namibia. This issue, it was submitted, was not raised at the inception of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, and no argument was presented on it in the court <i>a quo</i> – it was never an issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[73]    It was submitted that it cannot now ten years down the line for the first time be raised in argument on appeal. It was further submitted that nevertheless, the argument that the foreign judgment offends public policy is misconceived.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the respondent</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[74]    The first point raised on behalf of the respondents was that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of rules 7, 8 and 14 of the Rules of this Court, rendering appellant’s appeal liable to be struck from the roll with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[75]    Counsel on behalf of the respondents referred to the affidavit in support of a condonation application for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, where the deponent to the affidavit, a legal practitioner, stated (in paragraph 14 of the affidavit) that the appellant relied on legal advice from both its instructing and instructed legal practitioner, to the effect that, given the special circumstances of this matter, rule 14(2) of the Rules of this Court found no application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[76]    It was submitted that the appellant’s position at the inception of the proceedings was not to provide security for costs, that such security was not filed, resulting in the lapsing of the appeal. It was submitted that there was no appeal before this court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[77]    It was submitted that the tendering as security of an amount of N$150 000 by the appellant, did not change the position, since the respondents did not consent to this amount and neither was this amount determined by the registrar of this court as prescribed by the rules. It was submitted, in addition on this point, that there is nothing in the condonation application justifying why this court should usurp the function of the registrar. Thus without security being provided, the appeal should be struck from the roll with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[78]    It was submitted that an ‘appeal’ noted in the absence of a judgment or an order of the court <i>a quo</i>, on the reading of the express terms of rule 7(1) and (3) of the Rules of this Court, enjoys no status. In the absence of a judgment or order appealed against, it was submitted, this court would undesirably, in essence act as a court of first and final instance. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that the ratio in the <i>New Clicks </i>case<i> </i>is distinguishable from the circumstances of this matter and does not find application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[79]    In respect of the heads of argument on behalf of the appellant and the submissions made therein it was submitted that some of those submissions are not supported by the record in respect of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. It was submitted that since it was viewed essential for the determination of the appeal, the appellant should have filed those parts of the record supporting its contentions, in terms of the provisions of rule 11(8). For example, it was contended in paragraph 4 of the appellant’s heads of argument that the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> were set down on 6 and 7 February 2014, judgment was reserved, that the court <i>a quo</i> would have delivered judgment in March 2014, and that judgment was eventually delivered six years later. This contention, it was submitted, should have been apparent from the record, which it was not. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[80]    Similarly, in paragraph 50 of the appellant’s heads of argument, it was submitted that at no stage during oral argument during any of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> had it been submitted that the application in the (District Court of Rotterdam) had been instituted irregularly. There was, it was submitted, no record filed to support this contention.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[81]    Similarly, in paragraph 51 of appellant’s heads of argument, appellant’s counsel contended that it was not open for the court <i>a quo</i> to unilaterally make findings about the credibility and acceptability of Berkhout’s evidence in circumstances where the respondents failed to impugn such evidence. Again, it was submitted, by respondents’ counsel, this is not apparent from the record of appeal, and this court only has the word of counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted that it is improper to attribute a matter to the court below without putting the record that is dealing with an issue, and which this court is called upon to deal with, before this court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[82]    In respect of the notices of appeal filed, it was submitted in respect of the notice dated 31 January 2020, should it be accepted as a notice of appeal in terms of rule 7(3)(a), the appellant filed it out of time. If the supplementary notice of appeal dated     3 July 2020 is to be accepted as the notice of appeal, it was also lodged out of time. It was submitted there was no condonation application in respect of these non-compliances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[83]    Lastly, it was submitted that considerations of public policy regarding the enforcement and executability of foreign judgments within the jurisdiction of this court, broadly entails an assessment whether or not the respondents were afforded procedural and substantive fairness in the proceedings giving rise to a judgment and order obtained in a foreign court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[84]    In this regard it was submitted that the appellant has failed to set out in the founding affidavit why it is appropriate for this court to recognise that foreign judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Evaluation</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[85]    In view of the fact that the court <i>a quo</i>, subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, indeed pronounced its judgment, I deem it unnecessary to decide whether the principle expounded in the <i>New Clicks </i>case should also be adopted in Namibia. This appeal can be considered and be determined on the basis of the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[86]    The court <i>a quo</i> in its judgment made three findings referred to hereinbefore, firstly that it is inappropriate for a legal practitioner to institute proceedings on behalf of his client and also provide evidence and expert evidence; secondly, that the judgment granted by the District Court of Rotterdam was not properly authenticated; and thirdly that the judgment on which the appellant relies is not final and conclusive.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[87]    It was submitted on behalf of the appellant in oral argument that the first finding was a new issue which had not been raised in the court <i>a quo</i>, was not raised by the respondents, that no argument in this regard was presented in the court <i>a quo</i>, and that even in the answering affidavit of Martin this point was never raised by him.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[88]    In the heads of argument, on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the court <i>a quo</i> nowhere ruled that the evidence of Berkhout should be struck from the record and nowhere pointed to any pertinent and specifically identified unaccepted or improper consequences arising from the fact that Berkhout had instituted (with full authority to do so) appellant’s proceedings in Namibia, and that neither of the respondents took the point that the institution of the application was irregular. In answer to these circumstances, the legal representative of the respondents submitted that the record does not reflect any submissions that were made in the court below, nor do the heads of argument provided, give any indication of what was said in the court below. It was submitted that in order for the appellant to rely on this specific aspect, the record should have reflected that.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[89]    What is however clear from the record is that in his answering affidavit, Martin never raised this point. This is a fact which cannot be denied by respondent’s counsel. This in my view supports the submission by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that this point was not addressed in the court <i>a quo</i>, because if it had appeared in Martin’s answering affidavit (in the same way as the points <i>in limine</i>), in my view, the court <i>a quo</i> certainly would have referred to this fact, especially in view thereof that the court <i>a quo</i> would have found support in Martin’s viewpoint.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[90]    In addition to this, one cannot conclude from a reading of the judgment of the court itself that the inappropriateness or otherwise of the conduct of Berkhout had been argued in the court <i>a quo</i>. The inference is that the court decided to consider <i>mero motu</i>, this point in its judgment, and the reason for this inference is clear: At no stage, before considering the points <i>in limine</i> did the court <i>a quo</i> refer to any submissions made by the parties in support of or against the court’s point of view.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[91]    Counsel for the respondents is unable to deny the assertion of appellant’s counsel, that this point was never argued in the court <i>a quo</i>, since the former, unlike the latter, did not participate in the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. It is in my view clear that it is not only the word of the appellant’s counsel that the issue of the appropriateness or otherwise of Berkhout giving evidence, which was not argued in the court <i>a quo</i>, but it is supported by the record of appeal itself. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[92]    It is necessary once more to refer to the oft quoted passages in <i>Kauesa v Minister of Home Affairs &amp; others</i>:<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘. . . It is the litigants who must be heard and not the judicial officer. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            It would be wrong for judicial officers to rely for their decisions on matters not put before them by litigants either in evidence or in oral or written submissions. Now and again a Judge comes across a point not argued before him by counsel but which he thinks material to the resolution of the case. It is his duty in such a circumstance to inform counsel on both sides and to invite them to submit arguments either for or against the Judge’s point. It is undesirable for a Court to deliver a judgment with a substantial portion containing issues never canvassed or relied on by counsel.’<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:11.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[93]    In <i>Fischer &amp; another v Ramahlele &amp; others<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> at para 13 the following appears:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[13] Turning then to the nature of civil litigation in our adversarial system, it is for the parties, either in the pleadings or affidavits (which serve the function of both pleadings and evidence), to set out and define the nature of their dispute, and it is for the court to adjudicate upon those issues.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          and at para 14:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            [14]      It is not for the court to raise new issues not traversed in the pleadings or affidavits, however interesting or important they may seem to it, and to insist that the parties deal with them. The parties may have their own reasons for not raising those issues.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The Court of Appeal remarked that this point is of great importance because it calls for judicial restraint.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[94]    In holding as the court <i>a quo</i> did, that the conduct of Berkhout was inappropriate in the circumstances and to use this finding as one of the reasons to dismiss the appellant’s application, it erred. Nothing further needs to be said on this point. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The two points <i>in limine</i> considered by the court <i>a quo</i></span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The purported default judgment granted by the District Court of Rotterdam is not properly authenticated.</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[95]    The issue of authentication was raised in the answering affidavit of the respondents to the effect that none of the appellant’s documents were authenticated. The appellant responded thereto in its replying affidavit referring to the provisions of rule 63(2) of the Rules of the High Court which provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘(2)       Any document executed in any place outside Namibia shall be deemed to be sufficiently authenticated for the purpose of use in Namibia if it be duly authenticated at such foreign place by the signature and seal of office – </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                        </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:142px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><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">(a)       of the head of a Namibian diplomatic or consular mission or a person in the administrative or professional division of the public service serving at a Namibian diplomatic, consular or trade office abroad or a Namibian foreign service officer grade VI, or an honourary Namibian consul general, honourary consul, vice-consul, honourary vice-consul or honourary trade commissioner . . .’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[96]    Berkhout stated that annexed to his founding affidavit were annexures FB 1 to FB 10 which bore the seal and office of Mr Jens Peter Prothmann (Prothmann) and who is ‘a person in the administrative or professional division of the public service serving at a Namibian diplomatic, consular or trade office abroad or a Namibian foreign service officer grade VI’ at the Embassy of the Republic of Namibia, in Brussels, Belgium, where the authentication of the documents took place, and where his founding affidavit was signed and attested by himself and Prothmann. A copy of the last page of his affidavit showing the signature and seal of office of Prothmann was annexed as annexure FB 16.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[97]    It was further stated by Berkhout in his replying affidavit that in terms of Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents – to which both the Netherlands and Belgium are State parties, and to which Namibia acceded on 30 January 2001, any public document ‘emanating from an authority or an official connected with the courts or tribunals of the State, including those emanating from . . . a clerk of a court or a process-server (‘<i>huissier de justice’</i>)’ and ‘administrative documents’ are exempted from legalisation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[98]    It was pointed out that annexure FB 1, the service of the summons, was effected by the ‘bailiff’ and is therefore a document ‘emanating from a process-server’ and simultaneously amounts to an administrative document as contemplated by Art 1 of the Convention of 5 October 1961.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[99]    It was pointed out by Berkhout that annexure FB 2, the default judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam, in terms of the same consideration as set out in the previous paragraph is exempted from legalisation. The default judgment also bears the official stamp of the ‘Griffier Rechtbank, Rotterdam’ at page 1 of the judgment, and bears the signature of the ‘Griffier’, together with a confirmation (on page 2) that the judgment had been given by ‘Meester A.F.L. Geerdes in the presence of Meester H.C. Fraaij, clerk of the court, and was pronounced in public on 22 February 2012’. Berkhout stated that this default judgment was signed by both Geerdes and Fraaij.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[100]   The court <i>a quo</i> (in paragraph 34 of its judgment) stated that the signatures of the document purporting to be the default judgment are not legible leaving the court to assume that those signatures were the signatures of Geerdes and Fraaij. The court <i>a quo</i> concluded that therefore there is ‘merit in the respondents’ complaint that the signatures on the summons were not authenticated’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[101]   The court <i>a quo</i> does, firstly, not deal with Berkhout’s assertion in his replying affidavit that the default judgment was in fact signed by the clerk of the court and pronounced in public on 22 February 2012, and that complying with all other requirements of rule 63(2), the default judgment is deemed to be duly authenticated. Secondly, the denial by Martin is a bare denial. Apart from the bold assertion in his answering affidavit that none of appellant’s documents had been authenticated, Martin’s affidavit contains no assertion that the default judgment is not what the appellant claims it to be, and contains no reason why it is alleged that the default judgment (and other documents) had not been authenticated. It certainly does not contain any averment that the default judgment had not been signed by Geerdes and Fraaij.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[102]   In my view, the court <i>a quo</i> erred when it found that ‘there is merit in the respondents’ complaint that the signatures on the summons were not authenticated’. This is so because it is trite that a respondent cannot content himself or herself in an answering affidavit with a bare or unsubstantiated denial. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[103]   In <i>Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd</i><a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>the following was stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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 crucial question is always whether there is a real dispute of fact. That being so, and the applicant being entitled in the absence of such a dispute to secure relief by means of affidavit evidence, it does not appear that a respondent is entitled to defeat the applicant merely by bare denials such as he might employ in the pleadings of a trial action, for the sole purpose of forcing his opponent in the witness box to undergo cross-examination. Nor is the respondent’s mere allegation of the existence of the dispute of fact conclusive of such existence.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[104]   In <i>Engar &amp; others v Omar Salem Essa Trus</i>t<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the court with reference to alleged disputes of fact in application proceedings pointed out that; it must be established that there is a real dispute of fact; that a bare denial of material averments cannot be regarded as sufficient to defeat an applicant’s right to secure relief on affidavit; that enough must be stated to enable the court to ascertain whether the denials are not fictitious or intended merely to delay; if the statement constituting the denial is an inference from facts, the affidavit in question must at least disclose facts supporting the inference; and the court must not permit simple and blatant stratagems of denial to circumvent its effective functioning. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[105]   In the oft quoted <i>Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd,</i><a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the Appellate Division of South Africa referred with approval to the passage in <i>Room Hire </i>(<i>supra</i>) and advised that in certain circumstances, the denial by a respondent of a fact alleged by the applicant may not be such as to raise a genuine or <i>bona fide</i> dispute of fact and where a court is satisfied as to the inherent credibility of the applicant’s factual averment, it may proceed on the basis of the correctness thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[106]   The allegation by Martin that documents relied on by the appellant had not been authenticated is a bare or unsubstantiated denial which does not raise a <i>bona fide</i> dispute in these circumstances, and the court <i>a quo</i> should have approached the assertions by Berkhout that the relevant documents are deemed to have been sufficiently authenticated and exempted from legalisation, on an unopposed basis.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[107]   The court <i>a quo</i> also did not deal with the contention of Berkhout that the default judgment was in any event exempted from legalisation, ie it was unnecessary for the default judgment to have been authenticated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The point in limine that the default judgment is not final and conclusive</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[108]   Berkhout in his founding affidavit stated that a provisional or <i>interim</i> judgment was granted against the respondents by the District Court of Rotterdam on 22 February 2012, jointly and severally after a hearing on 15 February 2012 from which the respondents had intentionally absented themselves. The proceedings against the respondents were not further defended by them, whereupon the <i>interim </i>order became final in nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[109]   It was stated that if the claim of the plaintiff is disputed in the preliminary relief proceedings on grounds that suggest the existence of a proper defence to the claim, the preliminary or interlocutory relief will not be granted. This also explains why, in most cases, a preliminary judgment constitutes a final and dispositive judgment in the matter, since the very jurisdictional fact that an order was given, postulates the absence of any reasonable or triable defence to the claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[110]   Berkhout deals with the procedure where a default judgment is opposed, namely the institution of ‘<i>verze</i>t’ proceedings by a defendant, as well as the appeal procedures.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[111]   It is not disputed that neither of the respondents made any endeavour to either appeal against the default judgment, or to launch ‘<i>verzet</i>’ proceedings, despite the fact that the respondents had been made aware of the fact of such default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[112]   Importantly, it was stated by Berkhout that if no ‘<i>verzet</i>’ proceedings are timeously lodged, such default judgment, initially made as an interlocutory preliminary order, will then become final, definitive and unassailable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[113]   Martin in his answering affidavit, with reference to Berkhout’s explanation of the process in terms of the Dutch law and how a preliminary order eventually became final and unassailable, stated the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘17.1    I repeat the contents of paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this affidavit. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            17.2     Save for the aforegoing, the contents of these paragraphs are denied.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[114]   I shall briefly consider the contents of these paragraphs in the answering affidavit in order to see if any one of them raised a <i>bona fide</i> dispute. Paragraph 6 of the answering affidavit raised the points <i>in limine</i> referred to hereinbefore. Paragraph 7 contains a submission by Martin that the application is materially defective in that the process which the appellant followed is materially defective; that appellant’s documents attached to the application are materially defective; that the documents are in a foreign language; that the judgment is clearly not final; and that the application does not disclose or reveal a cause of action or give rise to an enforceable claim. These averments are unsubstantiated and have no evidential value. Paragraph 8 stated that the appellant’s reliance on Dutch law is contested. This again is a bare denial. Paragraph 9 stated that appellant’s reliance on conduct by the third respondent which may have the effect to bind first and second respondents is contested and appellant is put to the proof thereof. This paragraph as explained earlier has become irrelevant. Paragraph 10 states that the first and second respondents deny liability of any amount owing to the appellant. This is again a bare denial of liability and was raised for the first time by the respondents in the answering affidavit in the court <i>a quo</i>, and was not raised as it should have been, in the District Court of Rotterdam. In my view, clearly all these paragraphs referred to by Martin do not raise a <i>bona fide</i> dispute and is devoid of any evidential value.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[115]   The court <i>a quo</i>’s conclusion that the default judgment is not final and conclusive, is purportedly founded on the evidence of Berkhout to the effect that in the instance of a preliminary order made, ‘the existence of the debt may, despite the existence of the order, between the same parties be afterwards contested in that court, and upon proper proceedings being taken and such contest being adjudicated upon, it may be decided that there existed no obligation to pay the debt at all’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[116]   This is pure speculation, and in addition, contrary to the evidence of Berkhout, a duly qualified expert in Dutch law, that in the present circumstances the preliminary order became ‘final, definitive and unassailable’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[117]   The court <i>a quo</i> did not deal with the fact that Martin had no answer to the assertion by Berkhout that the default judgment was a final judgment. The court <i>a quo</i>, in my view, erred by misinterpreting Berkhout’s clear and unambiguous evidence. Furthermore, Berkhout’s evidence should have (again) been accepted on an unopposed basis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[118]   Regarding the contention, only raised on appeal, on behalf of the respondents, in respect of considerations of public policy, namely the assessment whether or not the respondents were afforded procedural and substantive fairness in the proceedings giving rise to the default judgment, respondents’ counsel submitted, in oral argument, that the appellant has failed to set out in the founding papers why it is appropriate for this court to recognise the foreign judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[119]   The appellant in paragraphs 52 to 64 of his founding affidavit dealt with the topic of public policy in Namibia and contended that the rules of natural justice regarding the notice of and an opportunity to be present or represented at the proceedings of               15 February 2012, had been complied with. The response of the respondents thereto is contained in paragraph 18 of his answering affidavit where Martin stated that paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his answering affidavit (previously referred to and discussed) are repeated, and that the contents of paragraphs 35 to 60 of the founding affidavit are denied. This is again a bare and unsubstantiated denial and carries no evidential value. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents during oral argument averred that the founding affidavit did not deal with the address of the first respondent, however counsel did not know whether this point was raised in the court <i>a quo</i>. Berkhout in his founding affidavit also dealt with the issue why the District Court of Rotterdam could have exercised jurisdiction over the first respondent. There was not a single objection lodged against the validity of the default judgment. It is significant that the court <i>a quo</i> referred to ‘background information’, set out in appellant’s founding affidavit, which had not been denied by the respondents. One such an instance referred to by the court <i>a quo</i>, and correctly so, was that the first respondent accepted and expressly undertook to pay the amount of €398 081,04 due by the second respondent to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[120]   With reference to the point raised of public policy ie that the respondents were not afforded procedural and substantive fairness in the proceedings giving rise to the default judgment, Berkhout in paragraph 62 of his founding affidavit stated that instead of taking any steps to pursue any defence, the respondents reacted to the proposal in the penultimate paragraph of his letter of 1 March 2012<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a> with further proposals of new business ventures that would have facilitated their financial ability to pay the appellant’s claim. Berkhout stated that the letter of credit which Auchab indicated he wished to issue before 8 March 2012 as payment to the appellant never eventuated. This statement (in paragraph 62 is an averment of an acknowledgement of debt) and was totally left unanswered by Martin in his answering affidavit and stands thus uncontroverted by the respondents. The contention, on behalf of the respondents, that they had not been afforded procedural and substantive fairness, is misconceived. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[121]   Counsel on behalf of the respondents in his heads of argument did not deal with any of the three issues on which the court <i>a quo </i>based its verdict, instead counsel impermissibly raised a new issue, for the first time on appeal, namely that the foreign judgment (the Dutch judgment) offends public policy in Namibia.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[122]   In <i>Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Ltd</i><a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>this court expressed itself as follows in respect of raising a new defence on appeal:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘As a general matter, the appeal court is disinclined to allow a party to raise a point for the first time on appeal because having chosen the battleground, a party should ordinarily not be allowed to move to a different terrain. However, the court has a discretion whether or not to allow a litigant to raise a new point on appeal. In the exercise of its discretion, the appeal court will have regard to whether: the point is covered by the pleadings; there would be unfairness to the other party; the facts upon which it is based are disputed; and the other party would have conducted its case differently had the point been raised earlier in litigation.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[123]   The point that the foreign judgment obtained was against public policy in Namibia was never raised by the respondents in their answering affidavit and is therefore a point not covered in the pleadings. The legal representative on behalf of the respondents in oral submissions did not address the contention by appellant’s legal representative that the point was raised, impermissibly. This court was also not requested to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the respondents leave to raise this new point on appeal. This point was therefore not available to the respondents on appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[124]   In conclusion, on the two points <i>in limine</i> dealt by the court <i>a quo</i>, it should be clear from the aforesaid evaluation that it erred in upholding those two points, and thus erred in dismissing the appellant’s application with costs. The court <i>a quo</i> also erred by refusing to accept Berkhout’s evidence since it was never an issue between the parties before the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Condonation application</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[125]   In an affidavit in support of the application for condonation for the alleged non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, the deponent to the affidavit, a legal practitioner, pointed out that the appellant was under no obligation to enter into security for the respondents’ costs as contemplated by rule 14(2). The appellant nevertheless undertook to furnish security in the sum of N$150 000 should this court hold that the provisions of rule 14(2) are applicable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[126]   This argument was developed as follows by the deponent to the supporting affidavit:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          In paragraph 1 of the appeal it was stated that the appeal was launched upon the basis that the court <i>a quo</i> constructively refused the relief sought by the appellant. In paragraph 12 of the notice of appeal it was stated that since there was no written judgment to which the appellant’s grounds of appeal could be directed, the grounds of appeal would be the appellant’s relief sought in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">          Rule 14(2) provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘If the execution of a judgment is suspended pending appeal, the appellant must, before lodging copies of the record, enter into good and sufficient security for the respondent’s costs of appeal, unless – . . . .’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[127]   The lodging of the appeal could therefore not have had the effect of suspending any ‘judgment’, which did not exist when the appeal was lodged.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[128]   It was stated that the appellant relied on legal advice from both its instructing and instructed legal practitioner to the effect that, given the special circumstances of this matter, rule 14(2) found no application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[129]   Once the appeal was lodged on the above basis such basis governed the foundation background that regulated to what extent the appellant had to comply with the various rules of this court. The degree and the extent of the appellant’s obligations in terms of the rules was then cast and set, so it was contended.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[130]   When the court <i>a quo</i> handed down its judgment subsequent to appellant’s noting of appeal, the appellant made its position clear in the ‘supplementary’ notice of appeal filed on 3 July 2020, that a delay of six years in the granting of a judgment, must be construed as a constructive refusal of the relief sought by the appellant, that appellant had not abandoned the appeal based on constructive refusal to grant relief and that the supplementary notice of appeal was not intended to substitute the earlier notice of appeal but to supplement its contents. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[131]   The deponent to the supporting affidavit prays, that in the event that this court finds that the provisions of rule 14(2) do apply, for condonation for its late and/or non-compliance with its provisions on the basis of the following grounds:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      Having pursued its cause of action for a period of ten years, with substantial legal expenditure in both the Netherlands and in Namibia, the appellant does not wish to stumble over a technical hurdle which may cause its pursuit to fail without the merits of the pursuit ever having been properly considered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      When the heads of argument on behalf of the respondents were received, deponent of the affidavit in support of the condonation application, became aware of the fact that respondents intended making a substantive issue about the provisions of rule 14(2), the deponent liaised with both Berkhout and counsel for appellant in Cape Town for purposes of establishing whether such issue could not be resolved prior to the hearing of the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      Since the deponent had to dispatch the respondents’ heads of argument and the bundle of authorities to appellant’s counsel in Cape Town, counsel only became aware of the full extent thereof on Friday, 4 March 2022.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      Both the deponent and appellant’s counsel subsequently on 4, 7 and 8 March 2022 communicated with Berkhout in an attempt to resolve the issue. It was pointed out that any decision to make available the sum of N$150 000 as security for costs, had to be approved through a special process in the hierarchy of the appellant in the Netherlands, which delayed the final outcome of the decision until 9 March 2022, when it was resolved to furnish the amount of N$150 000 and deponent to the supporting affidavit was informed thereof by email from Berkhout at 18h31 on 9 March 2022.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      The deponent undertook to present a proper and appropriate security bond as soon as the amount transferred from the Netherlands would show on the bank account of her legal firm.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[132]   It must be stated that the bond of security was filed with the registrar of this court on the same day the appeal was heard. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[133]   In respect of the further points taken by the respondents in their heads of argument, the following explanations were given: firstly, in respect of the contention that appellant did not comply with rule 7(1), the time frames contemplated by this sub-rule are calculated from the date of postulated ‘judgment or order’. There could be no such judgment or order where the appeal, as in this instance, is based upon a constructive refusal of relief. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[134]   This court was referred to paragraph 17 of the respondents’ heads of argument where the following appears:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘Should the appellant’s “notice of appeal” dated 31 January 2020 be accepted as such in terms of rule 7(3)(a) of the Rules of this Court, the appellant was required to lodge its ground of appeal within 14 days from 7 May 2020, that is no later than 16 June 2020.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[135]   It was contended that this statement is misconceived for the following reasons:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The filing of the notice of appeal of 31 January 2020 was not a step as contemplated by rule 7(3)(a), the latter which provides for the situation ‘where an appeal is noted against an order where reasons have not been given’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      In the present case there was no order, at all.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      The notice of appeal commenced a process against a constructive refusal to grant relief in respect of which the rules of court do not provide any time frames.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[136]   Secondly, in paragraph 18 of the heads of argument of the respondents, the following was stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘If the supplementary notice of appeal dated 03 July 2020 is to be accepted as the notice of appeal, it had to be lodged within 21 days from 27 May 2020, that is no later than 25 June 2020. It was in fact lodged on 03 July 2020, this is out of time on both scores.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[137]   It was repeated by the deponent to the supporting affidavit that the notice filed on 3 July 2020 merely <i>supplemented</i> and not substituted the earlier notice of appeal filed on 31 January 2020.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[138]   However, it was submitted, if the submission in paragraph 18 of the respondents’ heads of argument were to be accepted as correct, the lodgement of the notice on 3 July 2020 would have been six days late, that such lateness is only marginal and could not have caused any prejudice to respondents. The deponent prayed for condonation for the marginal late filing of six days. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[139]   The deponent to the supporting affidavit dealt with the prospects of success on appeal and contended, based on these prospects, that the granting of condonation with the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, favour the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[140]   It is not necessary for me to repeat the contentions of the appellant in respect of the prospects of success on appeal, since this aspect has already been dealt with earlier in this judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[141]   It remains only now to briefly state the approach adopted by this court, in considering condonation applications. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[142]   In <i>Balzer v Vries</i><a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the approach was explained as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[20]     It is well settled that an application for condonation is required to meet two requisites of good cause before he or she can succeed in such an application. These entail firstly establishing a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and secondly satisfying the court that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[143]   The explanation must be ‘full, detailed and accurate’ to enable the court to understand clearly the reasons for it.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[144]   A number of factors relevant to the determination of a condonation application, tabulated in <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build,</i><a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>include <i>inter alia</i> the reasonableness of the explanation offered, the <i>bona fides</i> of the application, the prospects of success on the merits of the case, and the prejudice suffered by the other litigants as a result of the non-compliance.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[145]   It is further trite that good prospects of success may compensate for a poor explanation and vice versa. This does not mean that the explanation provided by the appellant is a poor one, on the contrary, as will be apparent from the reasons herein below, it was reasonable in the circumstances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[146]   The explanation by the applicant was that because of the peculiar circumstances of this case, rule 14(2), requiring the appellant to enter into good and sufficient security for the respondent’s costs of appeal, does not apply. This was so since at the time of the lodging of the notice of appeal there was no judgment or order from the court <i>a quo</i>. Since a judgment or order of court was a condition precedent, which was absent, appellant was advised by its legal practitioners that it was unnecessary to provide security for costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[147]   I agree that the appellant was faced with exceptional circumstances, since it is very rare for a litigant to wait for six years without obtaining a judgment from a court. The legal representative of the respondents conceded during argument before us, that even a period of 39 months, calculated by the court <i>a quo</i> as the delay in pronouncing judgment, is an unreasonable period of delay. The question which comes to mind, if a litigant finds himself or herself, in the shoes of the appellant is, until when was the appellant required to wait for the delivery of a judgment?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[148]   I am of the view that it was not unreasonable for the appellant in the circumstances to have decided to lodge an appeal on the basis of constructive refusal of the relief prayed for, especially in view of the fact that when the judgment was eventually given the court <i>a quo</i> provided no reason for the delay, only an apology. The Rules of this Court, for obvious reasons, do not prescribe a procedure in such an exceptional case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[149]   I am of the view that it is not necessary for this court to make a definitive determination on the question on the merits, ie whether or not the provisions of rule 14(2), are applicable in the present circumstances. What is required is whether this court is satisfied that the appellant has met the two requirements of good cause. I am of the view that the explanation provided on behalf of the appellant, is a reasonable and acceptable explanation which enables this court to understand why the security for costs was not provided as prescribed by rule 14(2). Where the rules do not regulate the conduct of a litigant, as in this instance, logically one cannot describe the failure to lodge security for costs as non-compliance with the rule.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[150]   The fact of the matter is that security for costs had been lodged with the registrar of this court, even though the prescribed procedure, which may involve a decision of the registrar of this court, had not strictly speaking been adhered to, the respondents do not suffer any prejudice. In my view, the late lodging of the security for costs should in the unique circumstances of this case be condoned. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[151]   In respect of the submission that the provisions of rules 7(1) and 7(3)(a) had not been complied with, the appellant had adequately explained the reason for the non-compliance. Both these subsections refer to a judgment or order as a <i>sine quo non</i> for compliance with these subsections. These subsections do not provide any time frames which guide a litigant, in circumstances where there is no judgment or order from the trial court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[152]   The submission on behalf of the respondents that there was non-compliance with the provisions of these subrules is misconceived since it was impossible for the appellant in the absence of a judgment or order from the trial court, to comply with the provisions of these subsections. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[153]   The second requirement of prospects of success in respect of the merits of the application on appeal was dealt with by the appellant. In view of the discussion hereinbefore in respect of the points <i>in limine</i>, considered by the court <i>a quo</i>, it should in my view be apparent that the prospects of success on appeal are excellent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[154]   To the extent that it is necessary for this court to condone the conduct of the appellant in the prosecution of its appeal for the ‘non-compliance’ with the Rules of this Court, such conduct is hereby condoned. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[155]   In the result the following order is made:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The appeal is upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The finding of the court <i>a quo</i> dismissing the application is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(i)     The judgment granted against the respondents by the District Court of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, on 22 February 2012 is ordered and declared enforceable and executable against the respondents in Namibia, jointly and severally.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-30.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(ii)     The respondents are ordered to pay the appellant, jointly and severally:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                    </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The amount of €398 081,04 reflecting the capital portion of the applicant’s claim;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The amount of €4529,17 reflecting the legal costs payable to applicant by the respondents, arising from proceedings in the District Court of Rotterdam.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.95pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(i)   €199 040,52 representing the first rental amount that fell due to applicant 15 days after the date of invoice date in terms of which the due date for the payment of the first invoice was 4 June 2011;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.95pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(ii)   €199 040,52 representing the second rental that fell due on 4 July 2011 to date of the order made by the Honourable court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(d)      Interest at the <i>mora</i> rate of Namibia namely 20% as the interest rate applicable from the date of the order of this court to all amounts ordered to be paid to the applicant, calculated from the date of such order until the date of final payment of all such amounts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(e)      The costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant in Namibia, on the scale as between party and party; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(f)       <i>Mora</i> interest on any amount of costs awarded to applicant, calculated from the date of the <i>allocatur</i> of the Taxing Master to date of payment thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(g)      The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the costs on appeal, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, such costs to include the costs of one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MAINGA JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">LIEBENBERG AJA</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPEARANCES</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPELLANT:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">T A Barnard</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">Instructed by ENSafrica | Namibia (Incorporated as LorentzAngula Inc.)</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">FIRST and SECOND RESPONDENTS:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">G Narib (with him T Muhongo)</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">Instructed by Etzold-Duvenhage</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoBodyText" 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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> And signed in his capacity as Executive Director – Head of Administration Petroholland Oil Refining (Pty) Ltd (the second respondent).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Points (a) and (d) were not persisted with in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><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-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Also referred to as the Apostille Convention.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> A certified copy of the summons together with exhibits annexed thereto.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> A certified copy of the judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><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>Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa &amp; others v Tshabalala-Msimang</i> <i>&amp; another NNO; New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd</i> <i>v Minister of Health &amp; another</i> 2005 (3) SA 238 (SCA).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> These findings are referred to in para 50 of this judgment.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Kauesa v Minister of Home Affairs &amp; others</i> 1995 NR 175 (SC) at 183E-G.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> See also <i>Teek v The President of the Republic of Namibia</i> 2015 (1) NR 58 (SC) para 30.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="" id="_ftn10"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Fischer &amp; another v Ramahlele &amp; others</i> 2014 (4) SA 614 (SCA).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="" id="_ftn11"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd </i>1949 SA 1155 (T) at 1162-1163.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="" id="_ftn12"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Engar &amp; others v Omar Salem Essa Trust </i>1970 (1) SA 77 NPD at 83D-G.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="" id="_ftn13"><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:11.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd</span></span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634I-635A.</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="" id="_ftn14"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> In this penultimate paragraph Berkhout stated that if payment of EUR 435 518,65 has been received by Standic (the appellant) not later than 8 March 2012 at 17h00, the appellant was prepared to discuss in good faith with Petroholland (second respondent) the terms of a new agreement for storage capacity for 30 000 cbm.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="" id="_ftn15"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Di Savino v Nedbank</i> <i>Namibia Ltd</i> 2012 (2) NR 507 (SC) at 518A-C.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="" id="_ftn16"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Balzer v Vries</i> 2015 (2) NR 547 (SC) at 551J-552A.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="" id="_ftn17"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Beukes &amp; another v South West Africa Building Society (SWABOU) &amp; others </i>(SA 10/2006) [2010] NASC (5 November 2010) para 13.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="" id="_ftn18"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build</i> 2014 (1) NR 187 (SC) para 5.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Sun, 25 Sep 2022 18:40:30 +0000 Mariana 26400 at http://namiblii.org Solsquare Energy (Pty) Ltd v Luhl (SA 45 of 2019) [2022] NASC 29 (25 August 2022); http://namiblii.org/na/judgment/supreme-court/2022/29 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Solsquare Energy (Pty) Ltd v Luhl (SA 45 of 2019) [2022] NASC 29 (25 August 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">Sat, 09/03/2022 - 07:59</span> <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="MsoNoSpacing" 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 an application for condonation for the filing of an incomplete record, the appellant explained that despite relentless attendance to the offices of the transcription service providers in an attempt to obtain the missing part of the record, the transcribers were unwilling to assist satisfactorily therewith, as a result a complete record was filed about one and a half years late.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 missing parts of the record surfaced miraculously after a letter from the registrar of this court addressed to appellant’s legal representatives was presented to the transcription service provider.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">No explanation was provided why the recordings were not discovered earlier, if the recordings had always been on the trial court’s storage devices. An explanation was called for in the circumstances of this case by the transcription service providers in the form of a supporting affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 non-compliance with the rules was glaring, inexplicable, not rational and unpersuasive. This court on the strength of the explanation for failure to file a complete record was left unanswered, which circumstances makes this court unable to understand how it really came about and to assess appellant’s conduct and motives.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 deponent to appellant’s founding affidavits in respect of his involvement in the trial proceedings or otherwise, contradicted himself, was not frank with this court, which in turn negatively affected the <i>bona fides</i> of the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 incumbent upon an applicant in a condonation application, where it appears that part of the record is missing, to reconstruct the missing part or at least attempt to do so, where it is possible, in order to comply with his or her obligation to file a complete appeal record.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">No issue of public importance arose which could have tilted the balance in favour of granting condonation. In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the prospects of success on the merits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">Condonation and reinstatement application refused.</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-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.namiblii.org/files/judgments/nasc/2022/29/2022-nasc-29.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=83973">2022-nasc-29.docx</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 style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><img alt="Coat of Arms.bmp" src="" style="width:134px; height:139px" /></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">CASE NO: SA 45/2019</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAMIBIA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SOLSQUARE ENERGY (PTY) LTD</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Appellant</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HANS IVO LÜHL</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        MAINGA JA, SMUTS JA and HOFF JA</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard:          31 March 2021 and</span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <b>4 October 2021</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered:    25 August 2022</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><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">Summary:    </span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application for condonation for the filing of an incomplete record, the appellant explained that despite relentless attendance to the offices of the transcription service providers in an attempt to obtain the missing part of the record, the transcribers were unwilling to assist satisfactorily therewith, as a result a complete record was filed about one and a half years late.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 missing parts of the record surfaced miraculously after a letter from the registrar of this court addressed to appellant’s legal representatives was presented to the transcription service provider.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">No explanation was provided why the recordings were not discovered earlier, if the recordings had always been on the trial court’s storage devices. An explanation was called for in the circumstances of this case by the transcription service providers in the form of a supporting affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 non-compliance with the rules was glaring, inexplicable, not rational and unpersuasive. This court on the strength of the explanation for failure to file a complete record was left unanswered, which circumstances makes this court unable to understand how it really came about and to assess appellant’s conduct and motives.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 deponent to appellant’s founding affidavits in respect of his involvement in the trial proceedings or otherwise, contradicted himself, was not frank with this court, which in turn negatively affected the <i>bona fides</i> of the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 incumbent upon an applicant in a condonation application, where it appears that part of the record is missing, to reconstruct the missing part or at least attempt to do so, where it is possible, in order to comply with his or her obligation to file a complete appeal record.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">No issue of public importance arose which could have tilted the balance in favour of granting condonation. In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the prospects of success on the merits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">Condonation and reinstatement application refused.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">____________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPEAL JUDGMENT</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">____________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA (MAINGA JA and SMUTS JA concurring):</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]      This is an appeal against the entire judgment delivered in the High Court (<i>a quo</i>) ordering the appellant to make certain payments (of N$75 000 and N$5000 respectively with interest) in respect of a claim for damages based on alleged misrepresentation, alternatively unjust enrichment, to the respondent, and by dismissing the appellant’s counterclaim based on the repudiation of the contract in the amount of N$240 886,62. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Background</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]      The respondent in the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> alleged in its amended particulars of claim that during August 2010 he was desirous of purchasing a 5 kw wind turbine and batteries with an inverter (the equipment) from the appellant provided that the equipment would be sold under guarantee against wind and lightning damage, which guarantee would be provided in writing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]      The respondent alleged that the appellant during August 2010 presented him with a quotation<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> for the equipment and with the intention of inducing the respondent to purchase the equipment, represented to him that the equipment would indeed be sold with a written guarantee against wind and lightning damage. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]      The respondent alleged that relying on the truth of the aforesaid representation, he accepted the quotation, which constituted a partly written and partly oral agreement between the parties, and that he during September 2010 deposited an amount of N$75 000 as partial payment in terms of the quotation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]      The respondent further alleges that during January 2011 he discovered that the aforesaid representation was false, in that the equipment could not be sold with aforesaid written guarantee. As a result of this misrepresentation, respondent cancelled the agreement and alleges he is therefore entitled to ‘restitution’ in the amount of        N$75 000.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]      The respondent also alleged that he expended an amount of N$5000 for purposes of constructing a foundation for the equipment, which as a result of the aforesaid misrepresentation and subsequent cancellation, respondent claimed costs which were within the contemplation of the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]      In three alternative claims the respondent alleged firstly, that the appellant was negligent in that appellant did not make proper enquiries from the manufacturer of the equipment as to the guarantees offered upon the sale of the equipment; secondly, that as a result of fraudulent misrepresentation by the appellant, respondent is entitled to claim the amount of N$75 000; and thirdly, on the basis of unjust enrichment at the expense of respondent, he was entitled to claim the aforesaid amount. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]      The appellant in its plea denied that the equipment would be sold under guarantee against wind and lightning damage and/or that any guarantee written or otherwise would be provided to the respondent in respect of the equipment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]      The appellant averred that during August 2010 it presented the respondent with a quotation, but denied that this was done with the intention of inducing the respondent to buy the equipment, and denied that any representation of whatever nature was made that the equipment would be sold with a written guarantee against wind and lightning damage. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]    The appellant further pleaded that the respondent was in essence alleging and relying on what can only be an agreement to agree, which agreements are <i>contra bonos mores</i> and not enforceable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]    The appellant instituted a counterclaim in which it confirmed the agreement entered into as reflected in Annexure ‘A’ during August 2010. In terms of this agreement it was alleged that the purchase price of the equipment was N$353 961,09 and the respondent would be obliged to pay 50 per cent of the purchase price upon ordering the equipment and the remaining 50 per cent upon delivery of the equipment in Windhoek. Furthermore that the quoted purchase price did not include transportation and installation costs of the equipment which were not specifically detailed in paragraph 3 of Annexure ‘A’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]    It was alleged that during October 2010 to February 2011 the parties agreed to vary the terms of the agreement as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      the respondent would no longer purchase the equipment as detailed in Annexure ‘A’, but instead would purchase equipment detailed in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (inclusive of sub-paragraphs) of the attached Annexure ‘SOL 1’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      the purchase price would be N$257 882,84 excluding transportation and installation costs apart from those items specifically detailed in paragraph 3 of ‘SOL 1’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      the respondent agreed to pay 25 per cent of the purchase price upon order of the equipment; a further 25 per cent would be paid prior to shipping the equipment; 25 per cent upon delivery of the equipment; and the remaining 25 per cent was due and payable on commissioning of the equipment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]    It was alleged that the respondent requested that the equipment was to be delivered as a matter of urgency and that it was to be dispatched to Windhoek per air freight despite this freight being more expensive than shipping.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]    It was alleged that the appellant took all the necessary steps to prepare the respondent’s site for the installation of the equipment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]    It was alleged that the appellant sourced, ordered and paid for the delivery to Windhoek (per air freight) on 15 January 2017 as agreed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    It was alleged that save for paying N$75 000 the respondent failed to comply with all of his material obligations in terms of the agreements, and he thus has breached material terms of the agreement and despite notice has failed to remedy the breach. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    It was alleged that, in any event, the respondent repudiated the agreement, which repudiation the appellant accepted and as a result of such repudiation appellant had suffered certain damages totalling N$240 886,62.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    The respondent in his plea to appellant’s counterclaim alleged that ‘part and parcel’ of Annexure ‘A’ was an oral undertaking that the wind turbine will have a warrantee/guarantee against wind and lightning damage, which oral undertaking was to manifest itself in writing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]    The respondent denied that the agreement (Annexure ‘A’) was ever varied as alleged and denied that the terms and conditions of the agreement as originally orally and/or agreed to in writing had ever been varied as alleged or at all. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[20]    It was specifically denied by the respondent that the parties entered into a new agreement as alleged and also denied that ‘SOL 1’ found application and not Annexure ‘A’ any longer. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The condonation application</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]    Rule 8 of the Rules of this Court obliges a litigant to file, after an appeal had been noted, copies of the record of the proceedings with the registrar (in the circumstances of this case), within three months of the date of judgment or order appealed against. The appellant failed to file a complete record and applied for condonation of the non-compliance with the rule, and further applied for leave to supplement the record of appeal with volumes 6, 6B, 7 and 8 as filed with the registrar of this court on Monday, 22 February 2021. The appellant also sought the reinstatement of the appeal and a costs order if the application is opposed. The application was opposed by the respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    The judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> was delivered on 29 July 2019. The appellant noted an appeal against the judgment on 28 August 2019. The appeal record was due on 29 October 2019. The record of appeal was filed on 28 October 2019, however, without that part of the record reflecting the transcript of proceedings for the trial dates 26 April 2018, 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[23]    The legal practitioner who deposed to the founding affidavit in support of the condonation application, explained that he was a candidate legal practitioner at that stage, was not privy to the trial proceedings and had no knowledge which portions of the record their offices possessed nor was he certain of the number of days and on which dates the court <i>a quo</i> sat for trial. This, he stated made it more difficult to identify which portions of the record were missing and to act swiftly. He stated that by the time he started preparing the appeal record, the court proceedings on some trial dates had already been transcribed as the parties had requested on previous occasions certain portions of the record for purposes of scrutinising the evidence in preparation of heads of argument in the court a <i>quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    The deponent to the founding affidavit stated that pursuant to noting the appeal and consulting the respondent’s legal practitioners on the content of the record, he started collecting the necessary documentation in order to compile a complete prepared appeal record. He stated that he familiarised himself with the available portions of the record and quickly identified that the record for <b>24 May 2018</b> and <b>11 June 2018</b><a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a> were still outstanding. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    He explained that applicant had <i>ex abundanti cautela</i> started preparing the appeal record in early August 2018 and on 1 August 2018 he, for the first time attended the offices of the transcribers (Tunga) in order to request the missing portions of the record and found that the transcriber’s offices had been vacated. He was informed that Tunga had been replaced by another transcription service provider (Hibachi). He was also informed that a number of the staff employed by Tunga were then re-employed by Hibachi. He was assured by the staff of Tunga that all data would be kept safe and stored for the new transcribing service provider to take over.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    He explained that on 16 August 2018 he returned to Hibachi and requested the transcription of the entire record as he was still unsure whether there were any other dates of the record outstanding. On 24 October 2018 Hibachi informed him that the entire record was available for inspection. This was conveyed to him on Wednesday preceding the Monday on which the appeal record was due. He discovered that the record was still incomplete since the supposed complete record was no different from the incomplete record in his possession. The proceedings of the dates 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 had not been included. He explained that he requested Hibachi to revisit the Prison Court as well as Court E, since these were the courts in which the trial was held, in the hope that the outstanding portions of the record may still be on those recording devices. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    He related that subsequently he unsuccessfully engaged the respondent’s legal practitioner in an effort to agree to an extension of time within which to file the appeal record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    He explained the options available to him at that stage was firstly, not to file the appeal record at all, in the hope that Hibachi would eventually find the missing record and then deal with the consequences of filing the record late or secondly, file the incomplete record. He decided on the second option fearful that the appellant may suffer the ‘harsh’ consequences of not having filed an appeal record on time. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]    He stated that prior to the filing of the record he had on numerous occasions attended to the offices of the transcribers begging them for the complete record. On     5 November 2018 subsequent to the filing of the incomplete record, he again attended to their offices and submitted a new requisition sheet. He stated that afterwards on a weekly basis, he telephonically as well as in person attended to the offices of the transcribers but was on each occasion informed that they were still searching for the missing parts of the record. At this point he assumed that the outstanding record did not exist at all.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]    According to the deponent, the weeks became months and the year 2018 became 2019 with no missing record forthcoming from the transcribers, and he assumed there were no recordings for the dates 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018. Since he could do nothing more, he decided to stop attending to the offices of the transcribers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    The issue resurfaced upon receipt of a letter from the registrar of this court, dated 2 February 2021, addressing the fact that, that part of the record is clearly missing. The deponent explained that he immediately took that letter to the transcribers to impose on them the seriousness of the issue and the urgency in which the missing part of the record was required. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    Miraculously, two days later, the recording of the proceedings of 11 June 2018, was found. The recording was always on the trial court’s storage device. He commenced the preparation of the supplementary appeal record which was filed on 22 February 2021. However, the proceedings of 24 May 2018 were still outstanding. He explained that after having maintained pressure on Hibachi throughout the week of 22 to 26 February 2021 he was informed by Onesmus Nampala from Hibachi’s office via WhatsApp that this portion of the record had been found at Prison Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    The deponent pointed out that the filing of the incomplete appeal record was not as a result of any disregard of the Rules of this Court, nor any lethargic or passive approach by the appellant. He pointed out further that an application to this court for an extension of time before the filing of the incomplete record may have been more correct and prudent approach, however, at that time he was under the impression that the missing portions of the record did not exist and that such an application would be pointless. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    The deponent pointed out that it seemed that for the last two and a half years, the various dates on which the trial court sat were all recorded and as such could have been transcribed. However, according to the deponent, despite relentless attendance, inquiries and demands from the appellant’s side, Tunga and/or Hibachi were unwilling to assist satisfactorily therewith as no record was forthcoming from Hibachi for one and a half years.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    The deponent argued that the appellant has good prospects of success on appeal, and in the light of the efforts employed to file a complete record, the appellant should not be prejudiced as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver upon whom it entirely depended. The deponent dealt extensively with the prospects of success on appeal in his founding affidavit. I shall return to this aspect later during this judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[36]    The discovery of the records of the proceedings for 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 was however not the end of the dilemma faced by the appellant as will appear from what follows hereunder.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[37]    The hearing of this appeal, as well as the condonation application, was set down on 31 March 2021. On this day the parties were informed by this court that part of the record of the proceedings<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> was still missing, rendering the appeal record incomplete. On this day, the matter was removed from the roll, with costs to be borne by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[38]    In a second affidavit in support of the condonation application the same deponent explained that from 31 March 2021 until 23 April 2021 the appellant consulted client to explain what transpired at the appeal hearing, consulted counsel and considered the best way forward to properly pursue the appeal, and drafted the second affidavit in support of the condonation application on 23 to 26 April 2021. The deponent explained that the last missing portion of the record was in the process of being transcribed on 26 April 2021 and expected to be filed on 27 April 2021. It is not clear from the affidavit when, where and by whom the last missing portion of the record was discovered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[39]    The respondent deposed to an answering affidavit opposing the condonation application. The respondent in his answering affidavit, deposed to on 9 March 2021, stated that as a consequence of appellant’s prosecution of its appeal out of step with rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of this Court, the appeal has lapsed. Furthermore, in the notice of motion, the appellant did not seek reinstatement of the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[40]    The respondent, without specifically addressing each and every paragraph of appellant’s founding affidavit, contended that the explanation proffered by the appellant is neither reasonable nor acceptable; that the entire period of the appellant’s non-compliance with the rules, is explained in bald, vague, sketchy and contradictory terms; that there were various periods of inactivity which were completely unexplained; that it is both telling and inappropriate that the candidate legal practitioner’s principal did not depose to any affidavit to explain his or her supervision of the candidate legal practitioner; that appellant’s non-compliance persisted into the period within which the parties to the appeal were to deliver written submissions; and that the prejudice that his legal representatives of record, who were not involved in the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, suffered in the preparation of this appeal, is almost palpable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[41]    The respondent implored this court, not to proceed to the second leg of the enquiry, and to reject the explanation proffered by the appellant for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[42]    The respondent stated that if the version of appellant’s deponent were to be accepted, then the appellant was already before the filing of the purported record of appeal on 28 October 2019 aware that the record was incomplete, therefore the time to apply for condonation started to run at the very least, on 28 October 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[43]    It was argued that one of the principles of condonation is that condonation must be sought as soon as it becomes evident that condonation is required, ie 28 October 2019 at the very latest, but the first attempt at seeking condonation was launched on 1 March 2021, roughly one and a half years later.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[44]    The respondent explained that on 31 March 2021 the matter was removed from the roll by the appellant after this court asked the appellant if it was sure it wanted to proceed with the matter despite part of the record having been filed during the term while this court was sitting. The present application was thereafter launched on 27 April 2021 without an explanation as to why it took another month for the present application to be instituted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[45]    The respondent was of the view that in essence the excuse proffered by the deponent to appellant’s affidavit, in support of the condonation application, did not know how he should have proceeded in terms of the Rules of this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[46]    Nevertheless, the respondent in respect of prospects of success on appeal, stated that it does not lie in the mouth of the deponent to appellant’s founding affidavit to plead the matter pertaining to the presence (or otherwise) of prospects of success, since he is, not having been a party to the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, incompetent to do so and that on this basis alone, this court should be disinclined to deal with this aspect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[47]    The respondent pointed out that there was a duly admitted legal practitioner with a right of audience to appear before this court, supervising the deponent, but there is no full and detailed explanation by the duly admitted legal practitioner who was responsible for the prosecution of this matter which serves before this court for consideration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[48]    The respondent further stated that when candidate legal practitioners undertake their attachment, ethically they are not and cannot be responsible for the running of a case; that the present facts point to gross negligence in the prosecution of the appeal; that the appellant should have been consulting with an admitted legal practitioner for purposes of prosecuting the appeal, which does not seem to have been the case in the present instance.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[49]    In a second answering affidavit dated 17 May 2021 each and every paragraph of appellant’s founding affidavit was addressed. In this second answering affidavit the respondent stated that it relies on three grounds in opposing the condonation application. Firstly, the ground mentioned in the first answering affidavit in respect of the allegation that the candidate legal practitioner’s supervisor did not depose to a supporting affidavit (not merely a confirmatory affidavit) expressly indicating the steps which he took in ensuring that the appeal was properly lodged and prosecuted. Secondly, the explanation advanced by appellant’s legal representatives is essentially a lack of knowledge as to the applicable rules and practice of this court, and thirdly, an admitted delay in launching this application which runs from the date when the incomplete record was filed on 28 October 2019 up until 1 March 2021 when a belated application for condonation was filed. The respondent further advised that the appellant should have engaged the legal practitioners of the respondent requesting for a meeting to reconstruct the missing portions of the record as a first step which step was never taken.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[50]    The respondent stated that the founding affidavit lacks specific details in that no dates were provided when the follow ups with Hibachi took place, who was spoken to and on which dates follow-ups took place. The last date of attendance provided is            5 November 2018. In addition, the respondent noted the absence of an affidavit from Hibachi confirming the allegations made by the deponent of the appellant’s founding affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[51]    The respondent averred that the disregard of the rules is of such a nature that this court should not even consider the prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[52]    The respondent expressed the view that the appellant has no prospects of success on appeal. It was pointed out that the court <i>a quo</i> did not commit any error in law by permitting the respondent to amend his witness statement to incorporate the matter pertaining to respondent’s engagement with Lange<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> since this did not alter the issues arising for determination as set out in the parties’ proposed pre-trial order, and that the appellant could consequentially have dealt with any supplementation by seeking to call Lange if it so wished, but elected not to do so.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[53]    The respondent further emphasised that in the various electronic mail exchanges between himself and the appellant, he had sought a record of the initially verbally agreed terms. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[54]    The appellant’s legal practitioner also deposed to two replying affidavits. In his first replying affidavit (dated 19 March 2021) appellant’s legal practitioner pointed out that although he was a candidate legal practitioner for the duration of the trial in the court <i>a quo</i>, by the time he filed the incomplete appeal record he was a duly admitted legal practitioner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[55]    In regard to the respondent’s contention that appellant’s non-compliance is so palpable, appellant’s legal practitioner averred that the non-compliance complained of resulted solely from a third party’s inability to deliver the transcription. It was pointed out that appellant had requested the entire record of the proceedings as early as            17 July 2018 by Mark Kutzner, (Kutzner) in preparation of heads of argument, in the court <i>a quo</i>, and once Tunga Transcription Services had been paid he was instructed by Kutzner to start preparing the appeal record, and subsequently identified the missing portions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[56]    It was stated that there was no abandonment of the duty to timeously commence with the preparation of the appeal record and that he reported to Kutzner who maintained a sense of urgency and an oversight on the preparation of the record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[57]    The deponent stated that he had attended several sessions in the court <i>a quo</i> and was present during Lühl’s evidence-in-chief, and during Joring von Gossler’s cross-examination and that he has a well-informed comprehension of the evidence and the issues in this case. He disputed that him deposing to the prospects of success is an issue and mentioned that appellant’s director deposed to a confirmatory affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[58]    In the second replying affidavit, dated 27 May 2021, appellant’s legal practitioner replied to the three grounds of opposition raised by the respondent in his second answering affidavit. This was basically a reference to what was stated in his founding and first replying affidavits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[59]    The deponent pointed out that the appellant could not have sought condonation for the late filing of the appeal record before it had supplemented the outstanding portions of the record, alternatively, whether an application for condonation and reinstatement could have been filed at the time of filing the incomplete record (on 28 October 2019), whilst the outstanding portions of the appeal record had not been forthcoming from Hibachi until he could present to them a letter from the registrar of this court stating that portions of the record were missing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[60]    The deponent further stated that due to Hibachi’s constant undertaking to him (as late as 2021) that the record of 26 April 2018 was not available, nor found in their archive, nor at the court <i>a quo</i>, he did not think it wise to undertake (in his previous condonation affidavit) that the appellant would supplement the record with that portion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach in respect of condonation applications</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[61]    In this appeal although the appellant has filed the record of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> within the three month period after judgment as prescribed by rule 8(2) (b), the record was incomplete. This court could not adjudicate the appeal in this matter on an incomplete record. Thus where the appeal record has not been filed within the time periods provided in the rules or where the appeal record is incomplete, the defaulting litigant must bring an application seeking the condonation for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[62]    It is trite law that once there has been non-compliance, an applicant should without delay apply for condonation and comply with the rules.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[63]    In <i>Beukes &amp; another v South West Africa Building Society (SWABOU) &amp; others</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> this court explained:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[13]     In seeking condonation, the applicants have to make out their case on the papers submitted to explain the delay and the failure to comply with the Rules.  The explanation must be full, detailed and accurate in order to enable the Court to understand clearly the reasons for it . . . .</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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[64]    In <i>Balzer v Vries</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the approach was explained as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[20]     It is well settled that an application for condonation is required to meet the two requisites of good cause before he or she can succeed in such an application. These entail firstly establishing a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and secondly satisfying the court that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[65]    There are a number of factors relevant in determining whether or not an application for condonation for the non-compliance with the rules should succeed. These were summarised in <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a> as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[5]       The application for condonation must thus be lodged without delay, and must provide a “full, detailed and accurate” explanation for it. This court has also recently considered the range of factors relevant to determining whether an application for condonation for the late filing of an appeal should be granted. They include – </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:95px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-70.9pt"><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">                        “</span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">the extent of the non-compliance with the rule in question, the reasonableness of the explanation offered for the non-compliance, the bona fides of the application, the prospects of success on the merits of the case, the importance of the case, the respondent’s (and where applicable, the public’s) interest in the finality of the judgment, the prejudice suffered by the other litigants as a result of the non-compliance, the convenience of the court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            These factors are not individually determinative, but must be weighed, one against the other. Nor will all factors necessarily be considered in each case. There are times, for example, where this court has held that it will not consider the prospects of success in determining the application because the non-compliance with the rules has been “glaring”, “flagrant”, and “inexplicable”.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[66]    In the matter of <i>Thembela Madinda v Minister of Security of the Republic of South Africa</i><a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> at para 10 the court referred to possible relevant factors in determining ‘good cause’ and included, amongst others, ‘. . . any contribution by other persons or parties to the delay and the applicant’s responsibility therefor’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[67]    In my view, whether a third party or parties, in this instance Tunga and/or Hibachi, contributed to the delay or not, is an important consideration since it is the appellant’s case that a third party was solely to blame for the delay in filing the missing parts of the appeal record.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[68]    In the determination of what constitutes ‘good cause’, the court would consider the facts and circumstances of each particular application in the exercise of its judicial discretion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Submissions by counsel</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the applicant</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[69]    The appellant’s legal representative referred to the explanation given by the deponent to the founding affidavit in support of the condonation application and submitted that in the circumstances the deponent was not remiss or reckless and was clearly aware of the rules. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[70]    It was submitted that the appellant’s application for condonation was brought more than two years after the non-compliance occurred, and that the appellant should have appreciated that the filing of the incomplete appeal record was not proper compliance with rule 8, and should there and then have applied for an extension of time. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[71]    Counsel however pointed out that a condonation application at the time of the non-compliance would not have cured the defect, and, consequently, it would ultimately not have been possible to seek the reinstatement of the appeal even if condonation was granted. This was so, it was submitted, because the appellant was at that stage not in possession of the missing portions, and on the authority of <i>Tweya v Herbert</i>,<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the non-compliance of filing an incomplete record remains a bar to the appellant, until a complete appeal record has been filed, and only then can the appeal be reinstated. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[72]    In response to questions by this court, counsel stated that it was never a consideration to reconstruct the record, neither could counsel explain why this court was not informed of the incomplete record at the time the record was filed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[73]    It was submitted that although this was not a case of huge public interest, the public would nonetheless not want a case where it was blatantly incorrectly decided to stand. Counsel submitted in this regard that there were serious misdirections by the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[74]    Counsel in the heads of argument submitted ‘that the non-compliance although glaring was not flagrant nor was it – in the circumstances – inexplicable’. It was submitted that a reasonable explanation was proffered and as such the appellant’s prospects of success cannot simply be ignored.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[75]    Counsel submitted that the appellant was held hostage by a third party, and referred to the case of <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i><a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>where this court held that an applicant could not be held responsible for the lapsing of its appeal, if the non-compliance, which led to the lapsing, was ‘as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[76]    It was submitted that the appellant’s founding affidavit demonstrated that the appellant (albeit through its legal practitioners) could not have done more than what they did to prevent the appeal from lapsing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the respondent </span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[77]    The legal practitioner of the respondent in argument referred to certain portions of the appellant’s founding affidavit<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a> where the deponent stated that he suspected that the outstanding portions of the record did not exist and that it would be pointless to wait for it any longer. To this explanation it was pointed out that in the court <i>a quo</i> the appellant was represented by an instructing and an instructed legal practitioner and that there was no explanation why it was thought at the time that no more portions of the record existed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[78]    In respect of the appellant’s deponent’s admission that the applicant erred in its approach to this court, namely that the appellant filed an incomplete appeal record without notice to this court, nor was there an application for an extension of the time period for the filing of the appeal record, it was submitted that there was no explanation why this was not done. It was further submitted that this was an admitted disregard of the Rules of this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[79]    In respect of the paragraph in appellant’s founding affidavit that the deponent was at that stage still a candidate legal practitioner who may not have appreciated this court’s understanding of such unfortunate circumstances<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a> and its inclination to allow an extension of time within which to file the appeal record, it begs the question, so it was submitted, where was the principal of this candidate legal practitioner during the time this assignment was allocated to him. It was submitted that no one said anything pertaining to the aspect of supervision of the candidate legal practitioner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[80]    It was submitted that the appellant’s application for condonation and reinstatement failed to demonstrate good cause in that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      it is premised on the ignorance of the practice and Rules of this Court, and </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      no explanation is proffered by the appellant’s instructing legal practitioner in the court <i>a quo</i> (or the candidate legal practitioner’s principal) on the matter attendant to the delay timeously delivering the record or seeking an extension of the delivery thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Consideration of explanation</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[81]    The legal representative of the appellant in his heads of argument expressed the view that although the non-compliance was ‘glaring’, it was not flagrant in the circumstances, neither was it inexplicable. I need to mention upfront, that although counsel held such a view, it is for this court in the final analysis to consider whether or not such a view is justified and whether a reasonable and satisfactory explanation was advanced for non-compliance with the rules. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[82]    The appellant relies on the authority of <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i> for the contention that it was blameless in respect of the non-compliance with the rules, since such non-compliance was solely as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver. As was stated hereinbefore each application is to be considered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[83]    <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i> in my view is distinguishable on the facts. In this matter the appellant deemed it necessary for the determination of the appeal to include legal submissions in the court <i>a quo</i>, a reason which the appeal court accepted as a deviation from the requirements of what should not be included in the appeal record. This was necessary to be transcribed in the circumstances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[84]    Secondly, the appeal record was filed about five weeks late. The court of appeal took into account the unfortunate circumstances that a one month recess fell within the three month time line. If that period is taken into account the record was filed about two weeks out of time. The appellant’s legal representative on numerous occasions followed up with the transcriber’s promise that the transcription would take only a few days to be finalised. The transcribed record however was provided much later. It was in these circumstances which this court found that the delay in filing the record cannot be apportioned to the appellants or their legal representatives as it was as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver the transcribed record timeously. The facts of the present matter differed markedly in respect of the time it took to file a complete transcribed record, ie one and a half years late, although the appellant’s legal practitioner makes a similar allegation that the late filing of the incomplete record was attributed to the inability of the transcription services to provide the transcribed record. As indicated this aspect will require, in the circumstances of this case further scrutiny. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[85]    In support of the submission that appellant’s legal representative attended to the offices of the transcription service providers regularly, it was stated in the first founding affidavit (filed on 21 March 2021), that on 5 November 2018 a new requisition sheet was completed and attached as an annexure. No annexure to this affidavit was attached. In the second founding affidavit (filed on 30 April 2021) this statement was repeated and an annexure was attached together with a copy of an email addressed to the transcribers. This requisition sheet however reveals that the date the services were requested was 5 November 2019 and not 5 November 2018 (a year later than stated in the two founding affidavits). It does not appear from these founding affidavits that a requisition form was also completed on 5 November 2018 or why the requisition form completed on 5 November 2018 had not been attached. The email also bears the date of 5 November 2019. The judgment itself was delivered on 29 July 2019 and it may be possible that the appellant’s legal representative meant to refer to 2019 instead of 2018 which is consistently referred to in both of his founding affidavits. This is yet a further unsatisfactory aspect in what emerges as a contrived and implausible explanation, given the other unsatisfactory features of the explanation as explained hereunder.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[86]    The deponent to appellant’s first founding affidavit pointed out that he was not privy to the court proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, and therefore had no knowledge of which portions of the record their offices possessed, nor was he certain about the number of days, and on which dates the court <i>a quo</i> sat. The deponent stated that this made it undoubtedly more difficult to identify which portions of the record were still missing and to act swiftly.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[87]    In the second founding affidavit, and in response to the respondent’s submission<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a> that it does not lie in the mouth of the deponent to appellant’s founding affidavit to plead matter pertaining to the presence, or otherwise, of prospects of success since him not having been a party to the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, is incompetent to do so, the deponent to appellant’s founding affidavit, responded that he had attended several sessions in the court <i>a quo</i>, and has a well-informed comprehension of the evidence and issues of this case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[88]    There is a contradiction between the first founding statement of the deponent to appellant’s condonation application that he was not privy to the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> and the second founding statement that he had attended several sessions in the court <i>a quo</i>. An applicant in a condonation application needs to be candid in his or her application for condonation. In my view, the deponent to the founding affidavits was not frank with this court in respect of the extent of his involvement in the trial proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. This in turn must have a negative impact on the <i>bona fides</i> of the application. The deponent in addition did not take this court into his confidence when the appeal record was filed to inform this court that the record was incomplete.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[89]    The deponent to the founding affidavits’ explanation for the delay in filing a complete record is that a third party was for a period of one and a half years unwilling to assist satisfactorily with the provision of the missing parts of the record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[90]    This in my view is a serious allegation. There is no supporting affidavit from the transcription service providers to confirm this state of affairs and neither is there any explanation why there is no supporting affidavit in this regard. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[91]    After a period of one and a half years of inactivity, the missing portions of the record, which were thought not to exist, miraculously surfaced. The magic wand was the letter from the registrar dated 2 February 2021. It has been stated by this court that an explanation for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, must be full, detailed and accurate in order to enable this court to understand clearly the reason(s) for such non-compliance. In my view, although a miracle can be described as an occurrence which defies a rational explanation, in a condonation application a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay is a requirement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[92]    In order for this court to understand the reason for the delay, it was necessary in my view, given the circumstances of this case, to have obtained a supporting affidavit from at least one employee of the transcription service providers who has first-hand experience of the relevant circumstances. The deponent to the founding affidavit in support of the condonation application cannot explain this in view of his explanation that he did not have access to the recording devices used to record the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. The explanation by the deponent to the founding affidavits in support of the application, on its own, is in my view unsatisfactory to explain the surfacing of missing parts of the record after such a long delay, and especially in view of the serious allegation levelled against the transcription service providers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[93]    This court would have expected an explanation, if the proceedings were all along on the recording devices, why they were not discovered much earlier. There is for example no explanation in respect of the proceedings of 26 April 2018 as to where the recordings were discovered, by whom they were discovered, when they were discovered and why they were discovered so late. In respect of all the missing portions of the record (ie for 26 April 2018, 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018) there is no explanation why they were discovered only after the letter from the registrar was presented. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[94]    In the matter of <i>MA v AG </i>an unreported decision of this court,<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the explanation tendered on behalf of the applicant in a condonation application, was that the practitioner was under the ‘impression’ that the record had to be filed three months from the notice of appeal. This court remarked that the practitioner did not take this court into her confidence as to quite how she laboured under such ‘impression’. This court expressed the view (at para 19) that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘In the absence of the “impression” being explained at all (and where an explanation is certainly called for), it is nothing more than a self-serving statement set up to suit the timing of her eventual filing of the record, without any plausible basis and thus lacking in credibility . . . .’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[95]    Similarly, in the present matter, in my view, an explanation was called for why the missing portions of the record were discovered only after the letter from the registrar was presented to the transcription service providers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[96]    The impression created by the deponent to the founding affidavits is that his hands were tied (figuratively speaking) and that he could do no more. This is a view which should not be encouraged. It remains the responsibility of an applicant in a condonation application to provide a complete as possible record of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. Depending on the extent of the missing record, one would have expected appellant to reconstruct the lost part of the record or at least have attempted to do so. If it was not possible to do so, eg due to the voluminousness of the lost part of the record, to at least explain that an attempt had been made at reconstruction and why it was not feasible, to start, or to complete the reconstruction. We know that there was not even a consideration of attempting to reconstruct the missing part of the record and that there is no explanation why this was not done – not from the deponent to the founding affidavits, neither from his principal nor from appellant’s instructing legal practitioner in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[97]    The reconstruction of a missing part of a record is not a novel idea. In <i>Arangies</i> this court <i>inter alia</i> remarked that it appeared (in the circumstances of that case) that appellant’s legal representative made very little effort to locate the missing file ‘<i>or to take steps to collate a substituted record</i>’.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[98]    The public importance of the issues, raised for determination by a court, is a factor taken into account in the consideration whether or not to exercise its discretion in a condonation application in favour of an applicant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[99]    In <i>Road Fund Administration v Skorpion Mining Company (Pty) Ltd</i><a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a> it took the instructing counsel nine months after being advised by the registrar that the appeal was deemed withdrawn, to bring an application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal. This court held that<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a> had it not been for the great public importance of the issues raised and the overwhelming prospects of success, that case would have been a proper case to strike the appeal without considering the prospects of success in view of the unacceptable conduct of the appellant’s instructing counsel.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[100]   Similarly in <i>MA v AG (supra</i>), the appellant failed to provide an acceptable or satisfactory explanation for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court. It was held that ordinarily, the application for condonation would fall to be dismissed for this reason alone, without the need to consider the prospects of success of the appeal. This court however held that because of the public importance of the case, the court needed to consider the merits of the case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[101]   In the present application, no issue of public importance arises which could ‘tilt the balance in favour of condonation . . .’,<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></a> requiring the consideration of prospects of success in the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[102]   As stated hereinbefore, where there was non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, an applicant should lodge without delay an application for condonation and explain the delay and the failure to comply with the rules. In this regard it was admitted on behalf of the appellant that the application for condonation was brought more than one and a half years after the non-compliance and that the appellant should have appreciated that the filing of the record, incomplete, was not proper compliance with rule 8. Counsel however sought to justify this failure by pointing out that a condonation application would not have cured the defect, and that it would not have been possible to seek reinstatement, even if condonation was granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[103]   This is, in my view, an unacceptable unilateral justification for its failure to lodge the condonation application without delay. It is for this court to consider any condonation application and not for the appellant to second-guess the possible outcome of the condonation application and application for reinstatement of the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[104]   In my view, the reason why the appellant found itself in such a precarious situation was because the person tasked with preparing the record did not properly peruse it and had no proper supervision and guidance. Had he properly perused the record he would have discovered that the record was incomplete. This finding is bolstered by the fact that counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant was ready to address this court on 31 March 2021 on the condonation application and reinstatement of the appeal, when it was pointed out by this court that the record was incomplete – the transcription in respect of the proceedings of 26 April 2018 was missing. It is further bolstered by the statement of the deponent of appellant’s first founding affidavit himself in support of the condonation application, where he stated that he identified that the record for the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> for 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 were still outstanding – this after he had familiarised himself with the available portions of the record. No word was mentioned of the missing portion of the proceedings in respect of 26 April 2018.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[105]   I agree with the submission by counsel for the appellant that the non-compliance was glaring, but disagree that it was not inexplicable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[106]   The reason provided by the deponent to the appellant’s founding affidavit that the missing part of the record miraculously appeared after he had presented the letter from the registrar is not persuasive. As indicated hereinbefore it leaves a number of questions unanswered and this court is in the circumstances unable to understand why the missing parts of the record were filed late. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[107]   The deponent to the founding affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant averred that appellant never abandoned the appeal, but one is left wondering what would have happened in respect of the prosecution of the appeal, had the registrar not addressed the letter to appellant’s legal practitioners. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[108]   In view of the fact that the reason provided for the non-compliance with the rules is glaring, inexplicable and unacceptable this court is of the view that the condonation application should fail without the necessity of considering the prospects of success in respect of the merits of the appeal in spite of the fact that prospects of success in respect of the merits is good. The deponent to the founding affidavits also was not frank with this court in respect of his involvement in the trial in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[109]   In the result the following order is made:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal is refused.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The matter is struck from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MAINGA JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SMUTS JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPEARANCES</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPELLANT:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">J P Ravenscroft-Jones</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">Instructed by Engling, Stritter &amp; Partners</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">RESPONDENT:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">T Muhongo</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"> </p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">Instructed by Koep &amp; Partners</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoBodyText" 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: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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Annexure A to the particulars of claim.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> The dates as they appear in the founding affidavit (in bold).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><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-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> The transcription of the proceedings of 26 April 2018.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> A witness called on behalf of the appellant.</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Beukes &amp; another v South West Africa Building Society (SWABOU) &amp; others </i>(SA 10/2006) [2010] NASC (5 November 2010) para 13.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><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>Balzer v Vries </i>2015 (2) NR 547 (SC).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build </i>2014 (1) NR 187 (SC) para 5.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Thembela Madinda v Minister of Security of the Republic of South Africa</i> (153/2007) [2008] ZASCA 34 (28 March 2008).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Tweya v Herber</i>t (SA 76/2014) [2016] NASC (6 July 2016).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="" id="_ftn10"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i> (SA 61/2018) [2021] NASC (1 March 2021) para 81-82.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="" id="_ftn11"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Paras 28 and 29.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="" id="_ftn12"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> ie where a third party was allegedly solely to blame for the filing of an incomplete record. </span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="" id="_ftn13"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> In the answering affidavit of the respondent.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="" id="_ftn14"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>MA v AG</i> (SA 72/2019) [2021] NASC (10 March 2021).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="" id="_ftn15"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Paragraph 8. Emphasis provided.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="" id="_ftn16"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Road Fund Administration v Skorpion Mining Company (Pty) Ltd</i> 2018 (3) NR 829 (SC).</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="" id="_ftn17"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> Para 3.</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="" id="_ftn18"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <i>Skorpion Mining (supra)</i> para 3.</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-9d01c5cd9850f80e5c79f0684b3e2617189f670ec35a7e516a5ac7262ab22895"> <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 style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><img alt="Coat of Arms.bmp" src="" style="width:134px; height:139px" /></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">CASE NO: SA 45/2019</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAMIBIA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In the matter between:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SOLSQUARE ENERGY (PTY) LTD</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Appellant</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"> </p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> </td> </tr><tr><td style="width:349px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:-7px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HANS IVO LÜHL</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:258px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Respondent</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Coram:</span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">        MAINGA JA, SMUTS JA and HOFF JA</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Heard:          31 March 2021 and</span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"> <b>4 October 2021</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Delivered:    25 August 2022</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><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">Summary:    </span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">In an application for condonation for the filing of an incomplete record, the appellant explained that despite relentless attendance to the offices of the transcription service providers in an attempt to obtain the missing part of the record, the transcribers were unwilling to assist satisfactorily therewith, as a result a complete record was filed about one and a half years late.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 missing parts of the record surfaced miraculously after a letter from the registrar of this court addressed to appellant’s legal representatives was presented to the transcription service provider.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">No explanation was provided why the recordings were not discovered earlier, if the recordings had always been on the trial court’s storage devices. An explanation was called for in the circumstances of this case by the transcription service providers in the form of a supporting affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 non-compliance with the rules was glaring, inexplicable, not rational and unpersuasive. This court on the strength of the explanation for failure to file a complete record was left unanswered, which circumstances makes this court unable to understand how it really came about and to assess appellant’s conduct and motives.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 deponent to appellant’s founding affidavits in respect of his involvement in the trial proceedings or otherwise, contradicted himself, was not frank with this court, which in turn negatively affected the <i>bona fides</i> of the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 incumbent upon an applicant in a condonation application, where it appears that part of the record is missing, to reconstruct the missing part or at least attempt to do so, where it is possible, in order to comply with his or her obligation to file a complete appeal record.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">No issue of public importance arose which could have tilted the balance in favour of granting condonation. In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the prospects of success on the merits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">Condonation and reinstatement application refused.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">____________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">APPEAL JUDGMENT</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">____________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA (MAINGA JA and SMUTS JA concurring):</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]      This is an appeal against the entire judgment delivered in the High Court (<i>a quo</i>) ordering the appellant to make certain payments (of N$75 000 and N$5000 respectively with interest) in respect of a claim for damages based on alleged misrepresentation, alternatively unjust enrichment, to the respondent, and by dismissing the appellant’s counterclaim based on the repudiation of the contract in the amount of N$240 886,62. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Background</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]      The respondent in the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> alleged in its amended particulars of claim that during August 2010 he was desirous of purchasing a 5 kw wind turbine and batteries with an inverter (the equipment) from the appellant provided that the equipment would be sold under guarantee against wind and lightning damage, which guarantee would be provided in writing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]      The respondent alleged that the appellant during August 2010 presented him with a quotation<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> for the equipment and with the intention of inducing the respondent to purchase the equipment, represented to him that the equipment would indeed be sold with a written guarantee against wind and lightning damage. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]      The respondent alleged that relying on the truth of the aforesaid representation, he accepted the quotation, which constituted a partly written and partly oral agreement between the parties, and that he during September 2010 deposited an amount of N$75 000 as partial payment in terms of the quotation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]      The respondent further alleges that during January 2011 he discovered that the aforesaid representation was false, in that the equipment could not be sold with aforesaid written guarantee. As a result of this misrepresentation, respondent cancelled the agreement and alleges he is therefore entitled to ‘restitution’ in the amount of        N$75 000.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]      The respondent also alleged that he expended an amount of N$5000 for purposes of constructing a foundation for the equipment, which as a result of the aforesaid misrepresentation and subsequent cancellation, respondent claimed costs which were within the contemplation of the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]      In three alternative claims the respondent alleged firstly, that the appellant was negligent in that appellant did not make proper enquiries from the manufacturer of the equipment as to the guarantees offered upon the sale of the equipment; secondly, that as a result of fraudulent misrepresentation by the appellant, respondent is entitled to claim the amount of N$75 000; and thirdly, on the basis of unjust enrichment at the expense of respondent, he was entitled to claim the aforesaid amount. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]      The appellant in its plea denied that the equipment would be sold under guarantee against wind and lightning damage and/or that any guarantee written or otherwise would be provided to the respondent in respect of the equipment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]      The appellant averred that during August 2010 it presented the respondent with a quotation, but denied that this was done with the intention of inducing the respondent to buy the equipment, and denied that any representation of whatever nature was made that the equipment would be sold with a written guarantee against wind and lightning damage. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]    The appellant further pleaded that the respondent was in essence alleging and relying on what can only be an agreement to agree, which agreements are <i>contra bonos mores</i> and not enforceable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]    The appellant instituted a counterclaim in which it confirmed the agreement entered into as reflected in Annexure ‘A’ during August 2010. In terms of this agreement it was alleged that the purchase price of the equipment was N$353 961,09 and the respondent would be obliged to pay 50 per cent of the purchase price upon ordering the equipment and the remaining 50 per cent upon delivery of the equipment in Windhoek. Furthermore that the quoted purchase price did not include transportation and installation costs of the equipment which were not specifically detailed in paragraph 3 of Annexure ‘A’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]    It was alleged that during October 2010 to February 2011 the parties agreed to vary the terms of the agreement as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      the respondent would no longer purchase the equipment as detailed in Annexure ‘A’, but instead would purchase equipment detailed in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (inclusive of sub-paragraphs) of the attached Annexure ‘SOL 1’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      the purchase price would be N$257 882,84 excluding transportation and installation costs apart from those items specifically detailed in paragraph 3 of ‘SOL 1’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      the respondent agreed to pay 25 per cent of the purchase price upon order of the equipment; a further 25 per cent would be paid prior to shipping the equipment; 25 per cent upon delivery of the equipment; and the remaining 25 per cent was due and payable on commissioning of the equipment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]    It was alleged that the respondent requested that the equipment was to be delivered as a matter of urgency and that it was to be dispatched to Windhoek per air freight despite this freight being more expensive than shipping.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]    It was alleged that the appellant took all the necessary steps to prepare the respondent’s site for the installation of the equipment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]    It was alleged that the appellant sourced, ordered and paid for the delivery to Windhoek (per air freight) on 15 January 2017 as agreed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]    It was alleged that save for paying N$75 000 the respondent failed to comply with all of his material obligations in terms of the agreements, and he thus has breached material terms of the agreement and despite notice has failed to remedy the breach. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]    It was alleged that, in any event, the respondent repudiated the agreement, which repudiation the appellant accepted and as a result of such repudiation appellant had suffered certain damages totalling N$240 886,62.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]    The respondent in his plea to appellant’s counterclaim alleged that ‘part and parcel’ of Annexure ‘A’ was an oral undertaking that the wind turbine will have a warrantee/guarantee against wind and lightning damage, which oral undertaking was to manifest itself in writing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[19]    The respondent denied that the agreement (Annexure ‘A’) was ever varied as alleged and denied that the terms and conditions of the agreement as originally orally and/or agreed to in writing had ever been varied as alleged or at all. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[20]    It was specifically denied by the respondent that the parties entered into a new agreement as alleged and also denied that ‘SOL 1’ found application and not Annexure ‘A’ any longer. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The condonation application</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[21]    Rule 8 of the Rules of this Court obliges a litigant to file, after an appeal had been noted, copies of the record of the proceedings with the registrar (in the circumstances of this case), within three months of the date of judgment or order appealed against. The appellant failed to file a complete record and applied for condonation of the non-compliance with the rule, and further applied for leave to supplement the record of appeal with volumes 6, 6B, 7 and 8 as filed with the registrar of this court on Monday, 22 February 2021. The appellant also sought the reinstatement of the appeal and a costs order if the application is opposed. The application was opposed by the respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[22]    The judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> was delivered on 29 July 2019. The appellant noted an appeal against the judgment on 28 August 2019. The appeal record was due on 29 October 2019. The record of appeal was filed on 28 October 2019, however, without that part of the record reflecting the transcript of proceedings for the trial dates 26 April 2018, 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[23]    The legal practitioner who deposed to the founding affidavit in support of the condonation application, explained that he was a candidate legal practitioner at that stage, was not privy to the trial proceedings and had no knowledge which portions of the record their offices possessed nor was he certain of the number of days and on which dates the court <i>a quo</i> sat for trial. This, he stated made it more difficult to identify which portions of the record were missing and to act swiftly. He stated that by the time he started preparing the appeal record, the court proceedings on some trial dates had already been transcribed as the parties had requested on previous occasions certain portions of the record for purposes of scrutinising the evidence in preparation of heads of argument in the court a <i>quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[24]    The deponent to the founding affidavit stated that pursuant to noting the appeal and consulting the respondent’s legal practitioners on the content of the record, he started collecting the necessary documentation in order to compile a complete prepared appeal record. He stated that he familiarised himself with the available portions of the record and quickly identified that the record for <b>24 May 2018</b> and <b>11 June 2018</b><a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a> were still outstanding. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[25]    He explained that applicant had <i>ex abundanti cautela</i> started preparing the appeal record in early August 2018 and on 1 August 2018 he, for the first time attended the offices of the transcribers (Tunga) in order to request the missing portions of the record and found that the transcriber’s offices had been vacated. He was informed that Tunga had been replaced by another transcription service provider (Hibachi). He was also informed that a number of the staff employed by Tunga were then re-employed by Hibachi. He was assured by the staff of Tunga that all data would be kept safe and stored for the new transcribing service provider to take over.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[26]    He explained that on 16 August 2018 he returned to Hibachi and requested the transcription of the entire record as he was still unsure whether there were any other dates of the record outstanding. On 24 October 2018 Hibachi informed him that the entire record was available for inspection. This was conveyed to him on Wednesday preceding the Monday on which the appeal record was due. He discovered that the record was still incomplete since the supposed complete record was no different from the incomplete record in his possession. The proceedings of the dates 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 had not been included. He explained that he requested Hibachi to revisit the Prison Court as well as Court E, since these were the courts in which the trial was held, in the hope that the outstanding portions of the record may still be on those recording devices. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[27]    He related that subsequently he unsuccessfully engaged the respondent’s legal practitioner in an effort to agree to an extension of time within which to file the appeal record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[28]    He explained the options available to him at that stage was firstly, not to file the appeal record at all, in the hope that Hibachi would eventually find the missing record and then deal with the consequences of filing the record late or secondly, file the incomplete record. He decided on the second option fearful that the appellant may suffer the ‘harsh’ consequences of not having filed an appeal record on time. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[29]    He stated that prior to the filing of the record he had on numerous occasions attended to the offices of the transcribers begging them for the complete record. On     5 November 2018 subsequent to the filing of the incomplete record, he again attended to their offices and submitted a new requisition sheet. He stated that afterwards on a weekly basis, he telephonically as well as in person attended to the offices of the transcribers but was on each occasion informed that they were still searching for the missing parts of the record. At this point he assumed that the outstanding record did not exist at all.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[30]    According to the deponent, the weeks became months and the year 2018 became 2019 with no missing record forthcoming from the transcribers, and he assumed there were no recordings for the dates 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018. Since he could do nothing more, he decided to stop attending to the offices of the transcribers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[31]    The issue resurfaced upon receipt of a letter from the registrar of this court, dated 2 February 2021, addressing the fact that, that part of the record is clearly missing. The deponent explained that he immediately took that letter to the transcribers to impose on them the seriousness of the issue and the urgency in which the missing part of the record was required. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[32]    Miraculously, two days later, the recording of the proceedings of 11 June 2018, was found. The recording was always on the trial court’s storage device. He commenced the preparation of the supplementary appeal record which was filed on 22 February 2021. However, the proceedings of 24 May 2018 were still outstanding. He explained that after having maintained pressure on Hibachi throughout the week of 22 to 26 February 2021 he was informed by Onesmus Nampala from Hibachi’s office via WhatsApp that this portion of the record had been found at Prison Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[33]    The deponent pointed out that the filing of the incomplete appeal record was not as a result of any disregard of the Rules of this Court, nor any lethargic or passive approach by the appellant. He pointed out further that an application to this court for an extension of time before the filing of the incomplete record may have been more correct and prudent approach, however, at that time he was under the impression that the missing portions of the record did not exist and that such an application would be pointless. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[34]    The deponent pointed out that it seemed that for the last two and a half years, the various dates on which the trial court sat were all recorded and as such could have been transcribed. However, according to the deponent, despite relentless attendance, inquiries and demands from the appellant’s side, Tunga and/or Hibachi were unwilling to assist satisfactorily therewith as no record was forthcoming from Hibachi for one and a half years.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[35]    The deponent argued that the appellant has good prospects of success on appeal, and in the light of the efforts employed to file a complete record, the appellant should not be prejudiced as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver upon whom it entirely depended. The deponent dealt extensively with the prospects of success on appeal in his founding affidavit. I shall return to this aspect later during this judgment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[36]    The discovery of the records of the proceedings for 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 was however not the end of the dilemma faced by the appellant as will appear from what follows hereunder.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[37]    The hearing of this appeal, as well as the condonation application, was set down on 31 March 2021. On this day the parties were informed by this court that part of the record of the proceedings<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> was still missing, rendering the appeal record incomplete. On this day, the matter was removed from the roll, with costs to be borne by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[38]    In a second affidavit in support of the condonation application the same deponent explained that from 31 March 2021 until 23 April 2021 the appellant consulted client to explain what transpired at the appeal hearing, consulted counsel and considered the best way forward to properly pursue the appeal, and drafted the second affidavit in support of the condonation application on 23 to 26 April 2021. The deponent explained that the last missing portion of the record was in the process of being transcribed on 26 April 2021 and expected to be filed on 27 April 2021. It is not clear from the affidavit when, where and by whom the last missing portion of the record was discovered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[39]    The respondent deposed to an answering affidavit opposing the condonation application. The respondent in his answering affidavit, deposed to on 9 March 2021, stated that as a consequence of appellant’s prosecution of its appeal out of step with rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of this Court, the appeal has lapsed. Furthermore, in the notice of motion, the appellant did not seek reinstatement of the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[40]    The respondent, without specifically addressing each and every paragraph of appellant’s founding affidavit, contended that the explanation proffered by the appellant is neither reasonable nor acceptable; that the entire period of the appellant’s non-compliance with the rules, is explained in bald, vague, sketchy and contradictory terms; that there were various periods of inactivity which were completely unexplained; that it is both telling and inappropriate that the candidate legal practitioner’s principal did not depose to any affidavit to explain his or her supervision of the candidate legal practitioner; that appellant’s non-compliance persisted into the period within which the parties to the appeal were to deliver written submissions; and that the prejudice that his legal representatives of record, who were not involved in the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, suffered in the preparation of this appeal, is almost palpable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[41]    The respondent implored this court, not to proceed to the second leg of the enquiry, and to reject the explanation proffered by the appellant for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[42]    The respondent stated that if the version of appellant’s deponent were to be accepted, then the appellant was already before the filing of the purported record of appeal on 28 October 2019 aware that the record was incomplete, therefore the time to apply for condonation started to run at the very least, on 28 October 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[43]    It was argued that one of the principles of condonation is that condonation must be sought as soon as it becomes evident that condonation is required, ie 28 October 2019 at the very latest, but the first attempt at seeking condonation was launched on 1 March 2021, roughly one and a half years later.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[44]    The respondent explained that on 31 March 2021 the matter was removed from the roll by the appellant after this court asked the appellant if it was sure it wanted to proceed with the matter despite part of the record having been filed during the term while this court was sitting. The present application was thereafter launched on 27 April 2021 without an explanation as to why it took another month for the present application to be instituted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[45]    The respondent was of the view that in essence the excuse proffered by the deponent to appellant’s affidavit, in support of the condonation application, did not know how he should have proceeded in terms of the Rules of this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[46]    Nevertheless, the respondent in respect of prospects of success on appeal, stated that it does not lie in the mouth of the deponent to appellant’s founding affidavit to plead the matter pertaining to the presence (or otherwise) of prospects of success, since he is, not having been a party to the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, incompetent to do so and that on this basis alone, this court should be disinclined to deal with this aspect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[47]    The respondent pointed out that there was a duly admitted legal practitioner with a right of audience to appear before this court, supervising the deponent, but there is no full and detailed explanation by the duly admitted legal practitioner who was responsible for the prosecution of this matter which serves before this court for consideration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[48]    The respondent further stated that when candidate legal practitioners undertake their attachment, ethically they are not and cannot be responsible for the running of a case; that the present facts point to gross negligence in the prosecution of the appeal; that the appellant should have been consulting with an admitted legal practitioner for purposes of prosecuting the appeal, which does not seem to have been the case in the present instance.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[49]    In a second answering affidavit dated 17 May 2021 each and every paragraph of appellant’s founding affidavit was addressed. In this second answering affidavit the respondent stated that it relies on three grounds in opposing the condonation application. Firstly, the ground mentioned in the first answering affidavit in respect of the allegation that the candidate legal practitioner’s supervisor did not depose to a supporting affidavit (not merely a confirmatory affidavit) expressly indicating the steps which he took in ensuring that the appeal was properly lodged and prosecuted. Secondly, the explanation advanced by appellant’s legal representatives is essentially a lack of knowledge as to the applicable rules and practice of this court, and thirdly, an admitted delay in launching this application which runs from the date when the incomplete record was filed on 28 October 2019 up until 1 March 2021 when a belated application for condonation was filed. The respondent further advised that the appellant should have engaged the legal practitioners of the respondent requesting for a meeting to reconstruct the missing portions of the record as a first step which step was never taken.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[50]    The respondent stated that the founding affidavit lacks specific details in that no dates were provided when the follow ups with Hibachi took place, who was spoken to and on which dates follow-ups took place. The last date of attendance provided is            5 November 2018. In addition, the respondent noted the absence of an affidavit from Hibachi confirming the allegations made by the deponent of the appellant’s founding affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[51]    The respondent averred that the disregard of the rules is of such a nature that this court should not even consider the prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[52]    The respondent expressed the view that the appellant has no prospects of success on appeal. It was pointed out that the court <i>a quo</i> did not commit any error in law by permitting the respondent to amend his witness statement to incorporate the matter pertaining to respondent’s engagement with Lange<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a> since this did not alter the issues arising for determination as set out in the parties’ proposed pre-trial order, and that the appellant could consequentially have dealt with any supplementation by seeking to call Lange if it so wished, but elected not to do so.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[53]    The respondent further emphasised that in the various electronic mail exchanges between himself and the appellant, he had sought a record of the initially verbally agreed terms. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[54]    The appellant’s legal practitioner also deposed to two replying affidavits. In his first replying affidavit (dated 19 March 2021) appellant’s legal practitioner pointed out that although he was a candidate legal practitioner for the duration of the trial in the court <i>a quo</i>, by the time he filed the incomplete appeal record he was a duly admitted legal practitioner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[55]    In regard to the respondent’s contention that appellant’s non-compliance is so palpable, appellant’s legal practitioner averred that the non-compliance complained of resulted solely from a third party’s inability to deliver the transcription. It was pointed out that appellant had requested the entire record of the proceedings as early as            17 July 2018 by Mark Kutzner, (Kutzner) in preparation of heads of argument, in the court <i>a quo</i>, and once Tunga Transcription Services had been paid he was instructed by Kutzner to start preparing the appeal record, and subsequently identified the missing portions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[56]    It was stated that there was no abandonment of the duty to timeously commence with the preparation of the appeal record and that he reported to Kutzner who maintained a sense of urgency and an oversight on the preparation of the record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[57]    The deponent stated that he had attended several sessions in the court <i>a quo</i> and was present during Lühl’s evidence-in-chief, and during Joring von Gossler’s cross-examination and that he has a well-informed comprehension of the evidence and the issues in this case. He disputed that him deposing to the prospects of success is an issue and mentioned that appellant’s director deposed to a confirmatory affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[58]    In the second replying affidavit, dated 27 May 2021, appellant’s legal practitioner replied to the three grounds of opposition raised by the respondent in his second answering affidavit. This was basically a reference to what was stated in his founding and first replying affidavits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[59]    The deponent pointed out that the appellant could not have sought condonation for the late filing of the appeal record before it had supplemented the outstanding portions of the record, alternatively, whether an application for condonation and reinstatement could have been filed at the time of filing the incomplete record (on 28 October 2019), whilst the outstanding portions of the appeal record had not been forthcoming from Hibachi until he could present to them a letter from the registrar of this court stating that portions of the record were missing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[60]    The deponent further stated that due to Hibachi’s constant undertaking to him (as late as 2021) that the record of 26 April 2018 was not available, nor found in their archive, nor at the court <i>a quo</i>, he did not think it wise to undertake (in his previous condonation affidavit) that the appellant would supplement the record with that portion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">The approach in respect of condonation applications</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[61]    In this appeal although the appellant has filed the record of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> within the three month period after judgment as prescribed by rule 8(2) (b), the record was incomplete. This court could not adjudicate the appeal in this matter on an incomplete record. Thus where the appeal record has not been filed within the time periods provided in the rules or where the appeal record is incomplete, the defaulting litigant must bring an application seeking the condonation for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[62]    It is trite law that once there has been non-compliance, an applicant should without delay apply for condonation and comply with the rules.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[63]    In <i>Beukes &amp; another v South West Africa Building Society (SWABOU) &amp; others</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> this court explained:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[13]     In seeking condonation, the applicants have to make out their case on the papers submitted to explain the delay and the failure to comply with the Rules.  The explanation must be full, detailed and accurate in order to enable the Court to understand clearly the reasons for it . . . .</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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[64]    In <i>Balzer v Vries</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the approach was explained as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[20]     It is well settled that an application for condonation is required to meet the two requisites of good cause before he or she can succeed in such an application. These entail firstly establishing a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and secondly satisfying the court that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[65]    There are a number of factors relevant in determining whether or not an application for condonation for the non-compliance with the rules should succeed. These were summarised in <i>Arangies t/a Auto Tech v Quick Build</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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a> as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘[5]       The application for condonation must thus be lodged without delay, and must provide a “full, detailed and accurate” explanation for it. This court has also recently considered the range of factors relevant to determining whether an application for condonation for the late filing of an appeal should be granted. They include – </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:95px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-70.9pt"><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">                        “</span><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">the extent of the non-compliance with the rule in question, the reasonableness of the explanation offered for the non-compliance, the bona fides of the application, the prospects of success on the merits of the case, the importance of the case, the respondent’s (and where applicable, the public’s) interest in the finality of the judgment, the prejudice suffered by the other litigants as a result of the non-compliance, the convenience of the court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            These factors are not individually determinative, but must be weighed, one against the other. Nor will all factors necessarily be considered in each case. There are times, for example, where this court has held that it will not consider the prospects of success in determining the application because the non-compliance with the rules has been “glaring”, “flagrant”, and “inexplicable”.’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[66]    In the matter of <i>Thembela Madinda v Minister of Security of the Republic of South Africa</i><a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> at para 10 the court referred to possible relevant factors in determining ‘good cause’ and included, amongst others, ‘. . . any contribution by other persons or parties to the delay and the applicant’s responsibility therefor’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[67]    In my view, whether a third party or parties, in this instance Tunga and/or Hibachi, contributed to the delay or not, is an important consideration since it is the appellant’s case that a third party was solely to blame for the delay in filing the missing parts of the appeal record.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[68]    In the determination of what constitutes ‘good cause’, the court would consider the facts and circumstances of each particular application in the exercise of its judicial discretion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Submissions by counsel</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the applicant</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[69]    The appellant’s legal representative referred to the explanation given by the deponent to the founding affidavit in support of the condonation application and submitted that in the circumstances the deponent was not remiss or reckless and was clearly aware of the rules. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[70]    It was submitted that the appellant’s application for condonation was brought more than two years after the non-compliance occurred, and that the appellant should have appreciated that the filing of the incomplete appeal record was not proper compliance with rule 8, and should there and then have applied for an extension of time. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[71]    Counsel however pointed out that a condonation application at the time of the non-compliance would not have cured the defect, and, consequently, it would ultimately not have been possible to seek the reinstatement of the appeal even if condonation was granted. This was so, it was submitted, because the appellant was at that stage not in possession of the missing portions, and on the authority of <i>Tweya v Herbert</i>,<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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the non-compliance of filing an incomplete record remains a bar to the appellant, until a complete appeal record has been filed, and only then can the appeal be reinstated. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[72]    In response to questions by this court, counsel stated that it was never a consideration to reconstruct the record, neither could counsel explain why this court was not informed of the incomplete record at the time the record was filed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[73]    It was submitted that although this was not a case of huge public interest, the public would nonetheless not want a case where it was blatantly incorrectly decided to stand. Counsel submitted in this regard that there were serious misdirections by the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[74]    Counsel in the heads of argument submitted ‘that the non-compliance although glaring was not flagrant nor was it – in the circumstances – inexplicable’. It was submitted that a reasonable explanation was proffered and as such the appellant’s prospects of success cannot simply be ignored.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[75]    Counsel submitted that the appellant was held hostage by a third party, and referred to the case of <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i><a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></a><i> </i>where this court held that an applicant could not be held responsible for the lapsing of its appeal, if the non-compliance, which led to the lapsing, was ‘as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver’.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[76]    It was submitted that the appellant’s founding affidavit demonstrated that the appellant (albeit through its legal practitioners) could not have done more than what they did to prevent the appeal from lapsing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">On behalf of the respondent </span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[77]    The legal practitioner of the respondent in argument referred to certain portions of the appellant’s founding affidavit<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a> where the deponent stated that he suspected that the outstanding portions of the record did not exist and that it would be pointless to wait for it any longer. To this explanation it was pointed out that in the court <i>a quo</i> the appellant was represented by an instructing and an instructed legal practitioner and that there was no explanation why it was thought at the time that no more portions of the record existed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[78]    In respect of the appellant’s deponent’s admission that the applicant erred in its approach to this court, namely that the appellant filed an incomplete appeal record without notice to this court, nor was there an application for an extension of the time period for the filing of the appeal record, it was submitted that there was no explanation why this was not done. It was further submitted that this was an admitted disregard of the Rules of this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[79]    In respect of the paragraph in appellant’s founding affidavit that the deponent was at that stage still a candidate legal practitioner who may not have appreciated this court’s understanding of such unfortunate circumstances<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a> and its inclination to allow an extension of time within which to file the appeal record, it begs the question, so it was submitted, where was the principal of this candidate legal practitioner during the time this assignment was allocated to him. It was submitted that no one said anything pertaining to the aspect of supervision of the candidate legal practitioner. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[80]    It was submitted that the appellant’s application for condonation and reinstatement failed to demonstrate good cause in that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      it is premised on the ignorance of the practice and Rules of this Court, and </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      no explanation is proffered by the appellant’s instructing legal practitioner in the court <i>a quo</i> (or the candidate legal practitioner’s principal) on the matter attendant to the delay timeously delivering the record or seeking an extension of the delivery thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">Consideration of explanation</span></span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[81]    The legal representative of the appellant in his heads of argument expressed the view that although the non-compliance was ‘glaring’, it was not flagrant in the circumstances, neither was it inexplicable. I need to mention upfront, that although counsel held such a view, it is for this court in the final analysis to consider whether or not such a view is justified and whether a reasonable and satisfactory explanation was advanced for non-compliance with the rules. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[82]    The appellant relies on the authority of <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i> for the contention that it was blameless in respect of the non-compliance with the rules, since such non-compliance was solely as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver. As was stated hereinbefore each application is to be considered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[83]    <i>Imalwa v Gaweseb</i> in my view is distinguishable on the facts. In this matter the appellant deemed it necessary for the determination of the appeal to include legal submissions in the court <i>a quo</i>, a reason which the appeal court accepted as a deviation from the requirements of what should not be included in the appeal record. This was necessary to be transcribed in the circumstances.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[84]    Secondly, the appeal record was filed about five weeks late. The court of appeal took into account the unfortunate circumstances that a one month recess fell within the three month time line. If that period is taken into account the record was filed about two weeks out of time. The appellant’s legal representative on numerous occasions followed up with the transcriber’s promise that the transcription would take only a few days to be finalised. The transcribed record however was provided much later. It was in these circumstances which this court found that the delay in filing the record cannot be apportioned to the appellants or their legal representatives as it was as a result of a third party’s inability to deliver the transcribed record timeously. The facts of the present matter differed markedly in respect of the time it took to file a complete transcribed record, ie one and a half years late, although the appellant’s legal practitioner makes a similar allegation that the late filing of the incomplete record was attributed to the inability of the transcription services to provide the transcribed record. As indicated this aspect will require, in the circumstances of this case further scrutiny. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[85]    In support of the submission that appellant’s legal representative attended to the offices of the transcription service providers regularly, it was stated in the first founding affidavit (filed on 21 March 2021), that on 5 November 2018 a new requisition sheet was completed and attached as an annexure. No annexure to this affidavit was attached. In the second founding affidavit (filed on 30 April 2021) this statement was repeated and an annexure was attached together with a copy of an email addressed to the transcribers. This requisition sheet however reveals that the date the services were requested was 5 November 2019 and not 5 November 2018 (a year later than stated in the two founding affidavits). It does not appear from these founding affidavits that a requisition form was also completed on 5 November 2018 or why the requisition form completed on 5 November 2018 had not been attached. The email also bears the date of 5 November 2019. The judgment itself was delivered on 29 July 2019 and it may be possible that the appellant’s legal representative meant to refer to 2019 instead of 2018 which is consistently referred to in both of his founding affidavits. This is yet a further unsatisfactory aspect in what emerges as a contrived and implausible explanation, given the other unsatisfactory features of the explanation as explained hereunder.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[86]    The deponent to appellant’s first founding affidavit pointed out that he was not privy to the court proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, and therefore had no knowledge of which portions of the record their offices possessed, nor was he certain about the number of days, and on which dates the court <i>a quo</i> sat. The deponent stated that this made it undoubtedly more difficult to identify which portions of the record were still missing and to act swiftly.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[87]    In the second founding affidavit, and in response to the respondent’s submission<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a> that it does not lie in the mouth of the deponent to appellant’s founding affidavit to plead matter pertaining to the presence, or otherwise, of prospects of success since him not having been a party to the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>, is incompetent to do so, the deponent to appellant’s founding affidavit, responded that he had attended several sessions in the court <i>a quo</i>, and has a well-informed comprehension of the evidence and issues of this case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[88]    There is a contradiction between the first founding statement of the deponent to appellant’s condonation application that he was not privy to the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> and the second founding statement that he had attended several sessions in the court <i>a quo</i>. An applicant in a condonation application needs to be candid in his or her application for condonation. In my view, the deponent to the founding affidavits was not frank with this court in respect of the extent of his involvement in the trial proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. This in turn must have a negative impact on the <i>bona fides</i> of the application. The deponent in addition did not take this court into his confidence when the appeal record was filed to inform this court that the record was incomplete.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[89]    The deponent to the founding affidavits’ explanation for the delay in filing a complete record is that a third party was for a period of one and a half years unwilling to assist satisfactorily with the provision of the missing parts of the record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[90]    This in my view is a serious allegation. There is no supporting affidavit from the transcription service providers to confirm this state of affairs and neither is there any explanation why there is no supporting affidavit in this regard. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[91]    After a period of one and a half years of inactivity, the missing portions of the record, which were thought not to exist, miraculously surfaced. The magic wand was the letter from the registrar dated 2 February 2021. It has been stated by this court that an explanation for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, must be full, detailed and accurate in order to enable this court to understand clearly the reason(s) for such non-compliance. In my view, although a miracle can be described as an occurrence which defies a rational explanation, in a condonation application a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay is a requirement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[92]    In order for this court to understand the reason for the delay, it was necessary in my view, given the circumstances of this case, to have obtained a supporting affidavit from at least one employee of the transcription service providers who has first-hand experience of the relevant circumstances. The deponent to the founding affidavit in support of the condonation application cannot explain this in view of his explanation that he did not have access to the recording devices used to record the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. The explanation by the deponent to the founding affidavits in support of the application, on its own, is in my view unsatisfactory to explain the surfacing of missing parts of the record after such a long delay, and especially in view of the serious allegation levelled against the transcription service providers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[93]    This court would have expected an explanation, if the proceedings were all along on the recording devices, why they were not discovered much earlier. There is for example no explanation in respect of the proceedings of 26 April 2018 as to where the recordings were discovered, by whom they were discovered, when they were discovered and why they were discovered so late. In respect of all the missing portions of the record (ie for 26 April 2018, 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018) there is no explanation why they were discovered only after the letter from the registrar was presented. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[94]    In the matter of <i>MA v AG </i>an unreported decision of this court,<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a> the explanation tendered on behalf of the applicant in a condonation application, was that the practitioner was under the ‘impression’ that the record had to be filed three months from the notice of appeal. This court remarked that the practitioner did not take this court into her confidence as to quite how she laboured under such ‘impression’. This court expressed the view (at para 19) that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><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">            ‘In the absence of the “impression” being explained at all (and where an explanation is certainly called for), it is nothing more than a self-serving statement set up to suit the timing of her eventual filing of the record, without any plausible basis and thus lacking in credibility . . . .’</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[95]    Similarly, in the present matter, in my view, an explanation was called for why the missing portions of the record were discovered only after the letter from the registrar was presented to the transcription service providers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[96]    The impression created by the deponent to the founding affidavits is that his hands were tied (figuratively speaking) and that he could do no more. This is a view which should not be encouraged. It remains the responsibility of an applicant in a condonation application to provide a complete as possible record of the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i>. Depending on the extent of the missing record, one would have expected appellant to reconstruct the lost part of the record or at least have attempted to do so. If it was not possible to do so, eg due to the voluminousness of the lost part of the record, to at least explain that an attempt had been made at reconstruction and why it was not feasible, to start, or to complete the reconstruction. We know that there was not even a consideration of attempting to reconstruct the missing part of the record and that there is no explanation why this was not done – not from the deponent to the founding affidavits, neither from his principal nor from appellant’s instructing legal practitioner in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[97]    The reconstruction of a missing part of a record is not a novel idea. In <i>Arangies</i> this court <i>inter alia</i> remarked that it appeared (in the circumstances of that case) that appellant’s legal representative made very little effort to locate the missing file ‘<i>or to take steps to collate a substituted record</i>’.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[98]    The public importance of the issues, raised for determination by a court, is a factor taken into account in the consideration whether or not to exercise its discretion in a condonation application in favour of an applicant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[99]    In <i>Road Fund Administration v Skorpion Mining Company (Pty) Ltd</i><a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a> it took the instructing counsel nine months after being advised by the registrar that the appeal was deemed withdrawn, to bring an application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal. This court held that<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a> had it not been for the great public importance of the issues raised and the overwhelming prospects of success, that case would have been a proper case to strike the appeal without considering the prospects of success in view of the unacceptable conduct of the appellant’s instructing counsel.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[100]   Similarly in <i>MA v AG (supra</i>), the appellant failed to provide an acceptable or satisfactory explanation for the non-compliance with the Rules of this Court. It was held that ordinarily, the application for condonation would fall to be dismissed for this reason alone, without the need to consider the prospects of success of the appeal. This court however held that because of the public importance of the case, the court needed to consider the merits of the case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[101]   In the present application, no issue of public importance arises which could ‘tilt the balance in favour of condonation . . .’,<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></a> requiring the consideration of prospects of success in the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[102]   As stated hereinbefore, where there was non-compliance with the Rules of this Court, an applicant should lodge without delay an application for condonation and explain the delay and the failure to comply with the rules. In this regard it was admitted on behalf of the appellant that the application for condonation was brought more than one and a half years after the non-compliance and that the appellant should have appreciated that the filing of the record, incomplete, was not proper compliance with rule 8. Counsel however sought to justify this failure by pointing out that a condonation application would not have cured the defect, and that it would not have been possible to seek reinstatement, even if condonation was granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[103]   This is, in my view, an unacceptable unilateral justification for its failure to lodge the condonation application without delay. It is for this court to consider any condonation application and not for the appellant to second-guess the possible outcome of the condonation application and application for reinstatement of the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[104]   In my view, the reason why the appellant found itself in such a precarious situation was because the person tasked with preparing the record did not properly peruse it and had no proper supervision and guidance. Had he properly perused the record he would have discovered that the record was incomplete. This finding is bolstered by the fact that counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant was ready to address this court on 31 March 2021 on the condonation application and reinstatement of the appeal, when it was pointed out by this court that the record was incomplete – the transcription in respect of the proceedings of 26 April 2018 was missing. It is further bolstered by the statement of the deponent of appellant’s first founding affidavit himself in support of the condonation application, where he stated that he identified that the record for the proceedings in the court <i>a quo</i> for 24 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 were still outstanding – this after he had familiarised himself with the available portions of the record. No word was mentioned of the missing portion of the proceedings in respect of 26 April 2018.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[105]   I agree with the submission by counsel for the appellant that the non-compliance was glaring, but disagree that it was not inexplicable. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[106]   The reason provided by the deponent to the appellant’s founding affidavit that the missing part of the record miraculously appeared after he had presented the letter from the registrar is not persuasive. As indicated hereinbefore it leaves a number of questions unanswered and this court is in the circumstances unable to understand why the missing parts of the record were filed late. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[107]   The deponent to the founding affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant averred that appellant never abandoned the appeal, but one is left wondering what would have happened in respect of the prosecution of the appeal, had the registrar not addressed the letter to appellant’s legal practitioners. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[108]   In view of the fact that the reason provided for the non-compliance with the rules is glaring, inexplicable and unacceptable this court is of the view that the condonation application should fail without the necessity of considering the prospects of success in respect of the merits of the appeal in spite of the fact that prospects of success in respect of the merits is good. The deponent to the founding affidavits also was not frank with this court in respect of his involvement in the trial in the court <i>a quo</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">[109]   In the result the following order is made:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">          </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(a)      The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal is refused.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(b)      The matter is struck from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">(c)      The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">HOFF JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">MAINGA JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </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:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">__________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">SMUTS JA</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPEARANCES</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none"><tbody><tr><td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:-7px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">APPELLANT:</span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> <td style="width:304px; padding:0cm 7px 0cm 7px" valign="top"> <p align="left" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:left"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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">J P Ravenscroft-Jo