Case Title:

EMPLOYEES OF SWAKOPMUND URANIUM AS PER SCHEDULE ANNEXURE “POC1” v SWAKOP URANIUM

Case No:

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/01449

Division of Court:

MAIN DIVISION

Heard before

HONOURABLE LADY JUSTICE PRINSLOO, JUDGE

Date of hearing:

23 July 2020

Delivered on:

23 July 2020

Neutral citation: Employees of Swakopmund Uranium v Swakopmund Uranium (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/01449) [2020] NAHCMD 310 (23 July 2020)

Results on merits:

Not on the merits.

The order:

Having heard RAYMOND HEATHCOTE on behalf of the Applicant/Defendant assisted by RAMON MAASDORP and having read the pleadings for HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/01449 and other documents filed of record:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Ruling:

1. The Applicant / Defendant is hereby granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Namibia against the orders made on 5 May 2020 (under case numbers HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/01449 and  HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/04327, as consolidated);

2. No order as to costs.

Further conduct of the matter:

3. The case is postponed to 19/11/2020 at 15:00 for Status hearing.

4.  Joint status report must be filed on or before 16 November 2020.

Reasons for orders:

The application

[1]        This court heard argument on a number of special pleas raised by the applicant/defendant to the consolidated action (under case numbers HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/01449 and HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2018/04327) and dismissed the special pleas with costs. In addition thereto the court issued the parties with further procedural directions.

 [2]       The applicant/defendant now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against and in respect of the whole of the judgment and orders, including costs.

 [3]         The application for leave to appeal is not opposed by the respondents herein.

The applicable law and application thereof

[4]        The threshold enquiry in an application for leave to appeal  was set out by our Supreme Court in Knouwds NO (In his capacity as Provisional Liquidator of Avid Investment Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Josea and Another[1] as follows:

            ‘Generally speaking, the attributes to constitute an appealable judgment or order are threefold, namely, the decisions must be final, be definitive of the rights of parties or must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceeding. In terms of s 18(3) of the High Court Act interlocutory orders are not appealable as of right and need the leave of that court or, if that was refused, the leave of the Chief Justice, given by him on petition to be able to come on appeal.’

[5]        I am satisfied that the threshold in the matter in casu has been met as a substantial part of the applicant/defendant’s defence has been finally determined by this court and cannot be revisited by it.

[6]         Having considered the grounds of appeal and the argument advanced by Mr Heathcote in the heads of argument I am satisfied that the points raised in the application for leave to appeal are novel and there is no Supreme Court authority in this regard. The matter at hand is of great importance and the administration of justice requires that this matter be heard by the Supreme Court and that it makes a final decision on the issues raised.

Finding

[7] I am satisfied that a higher court might come to a different conclusion and therefor in light of the provisions of section 18 (3) of the High Court Act[2] of Namibia leave is hereby granted to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Judge’s signature:

Note to the parties:

Not applicable.

Counsel:

Applicant

 Respondent

Mr Heathcote

On instructions of

Koep and Partners

Windhoek