Court name
High Court
Case number
PA 147 of 2000
Title

Cilliers v Government of Namibia and Others (PA 147 of 2000) [2009] NAHC 52 (21 April 2009);

Media neutral citation
[2009] NAHC 52













CASE NO.: (P) A. 147/2000







IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA







in the matter between:



ALLAN CILLIERS Applicant



and



THE GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA First Respondent



MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM Second Respondent



THE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCES AND



MANAGEMENT OF THE MINISTER



OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM Third Respondent



THE PERMANENT SECRETARY OF THE



MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM Fourth Respondent







KENNETH MORRIS Fifth Respondent



BYSEEWAH HUNTING SAFARIS (PTY) LTD Sixth Respondent










CORAM: MARITZ,
J.


Heard
on: 2000/06/06


Judgement
on: 2009/04/21











JUDGMENT


MARITZ,
J.
: [1] The applicant applied for
an order declaring that the agreement to grant a hunting concession
in the Mamili National Park to the fifth respondent was “in
contravention of the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in
Chapter III of the Constitution and, on such declaration, to set
aside the agreement” and for further alternative relief.







  1. Except
    for the applicant’s replying affidavit (which added nothing of
    substance to the issues which had to be decided) all the affidavits
    in this application have been incorporated
    by
    reference as part of the affidavits filed in case No. (P) A 141/200:
    an application brought by one A.F. Uffindel against essentially the
    same respondents and the Minister of Finance. The facts in the two
    applications are essentially the same. The applicant is similarly
    situated as Mr Uffindell, the applicant in that application: both
    are registered trophy hunters who previously held trophy hunting
    concessions on State land but were unsuccessful in winning a further
    one at an auction held on 9 March 2000. The constitutional and
    other grounds on which the applicant sought to challenge the
    validity of the grant are subsumed within the wider attack in the
    Uffindell-application – so too, is the relief: In addition to the
    declarator, Uffindell also sought (and obtained) a rule
    nisi
    for a declarator
    and
    an interim interdict. In short, all the facts, issues and relief
    prayed for in this application are either substantially the same or
    narrower in scope as those which were raised and had to be decided
    in the Uffindel-application.


  2. The
    Uffindel-application was, in effect, dismissed on its return day (5
    March 2001) when the Court made an
    ex
    tempore
    order discharging the rule
    nisi; refused the application for interdictory relief and ordered
    the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs. Regrettably, the
    reasons for that order have only now been given.









  1. Given the similarity of the two applications and the identity of
    their causes, the outcome of this application must by necessity –
    and for the same reasons - follow the one in the Uffindel-case.








  1. For
    those reasons, which by reference I incorporate
    mutatis
    mutandis
    herein, the following order
    is made:








The application is dismissed with costs.