Condonation applications – there is some interplay between the obligation to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the non-compliance of a rule of court and the reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

The appellant brought an application for review against the first respondent seeking declaratory relief regarding the annual contribution increase of medical aid funds, and whether such an increase forms part of an amendment of the rules of the appellant, therefore requiring approval from the first respondent.

The appellant (Swakop Uranium) approached the High Court seeking a declarator that the second respondent (Mr Lubbe), as sole member is personally liable for the debts of a close corporation, represented nomino officio by the first respondent as its liquidator - in terms of s 64(1) of the Close Corporations Act 26 of 1988 (the Act); on the ground that Mr Lubbe was party to the business of the corporation being carried on recklessly, with

Subsequent to the noting of an appeal, rule 8(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court requires an appellant to file a record of the proceedings of the appeal.

The applicant in the present case sought to review the taxing master’s allocatur. The issue on review is the amounts allowed in respect of two instructed legal practitioners of the applicant (as expressly sanctioned by a costs order of this Court).

The approach by this court in condonation applications is restated. A litigant seeking condonation bears an onus to satisfy the court that there is sufficient cause to warrant the grant of condonation. The condonation application must be launched without delay as soon as a litigant becomes aware that there has been non-compliance with a rule or with rules.

The appellant (plaintiff a quo) instituted action for damages from the first and second respondents (Nghikomenwa and the Minister) jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved. On or about 17 May 2018, in Church street, Gobabis, the appellant’s vehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle belonging to Correctional Service, driven by the first respondent.

The respondents are 721 employees of the appellant. The respondents instituted two separate actions in the court a quo for overtime remuneration which they allege is payable in terms of their contracts of employment. The two actions were consolidated and together amounted to claims in excess of N$55 million.