CASE NO: A 248/11

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF NAMIBIA

In the matter of:

BELETE WORKU
….........................................................................................APPLICANT

and

SERVISAIR/EQUITY
AVIATION (PTY) LTD

AND 23 OTHERS
….....................................................................................RESPONDENTS

CORAM: MILLER, AJ

Heard on: 30
September 2011

Delivered on: 30
September 2011 (Ex
Tempore)

MILLER, AJ

JUDGMENT:
[1] This matter, is
to the best of my knowledge, without parallel in contemporary legal
history and for several reasons.

[2] The Applicant
approached the Court for final relief on a couple of hours notice to
the Respondents.

[3] The relief
claimed is sweeping in its nature and the Respondents include amongst
others the present Chief Justice, the present Judge President,
several judges of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, several
Magistrates and several legal practitioners. The relief it claims as
against the 1^st
to the 7^th
Respondents is for a
final order interdicting the Respondents from selling or liquidating
or closing the 1^st
Respondent, who I
may add is the former employer of the Applicant.

[4] Furthermore,
relief is claimed as a final interdict against the Deputy Sheriff to
execute presumably a writ of execution issued in pursuance of a
certain judgment debt which the Applicant claims he has against the
1^st
Respondent.

[5] As against all
respondents, the Applicant seeks monetary awards in damages. These
include as I have indicated several members of the judiciary, the
legal profession and the Ombudsman.

[6] In essence, that
claim for damages is alleged to be based on defamation, libel,
insults, humiliation, castigating, character assassination, racism,
racial discrimination and contempt of court at the instance of the
respondents.

[7] Remarkably, I am
asked by the Applicant to relieve the 1^st
to the 24^th
Respondents who are
the several judges, the ombudsman and the legal practitioners of
their licenses.

[8] By that I take
it that the Applicant intends an order that I should relieve chose
officials of their functions.

[9] If I were to
grant that it would mean that as from today, there will be no Chief
Justice, no Supreme Court judge, there will be no judge president,
there will be no Ombudsman and the legal profession will be less a
few of its members.

[10] The Application
is beset by several procedural and other difficulties. I am going to
refer only to some of them and the list is not exhaustive.

[11] Firstly, the
Applicant approached this Court in terms of the Provisions of Rule
6(12)(b) without complying with the ordinary Rules of Court relating
to the filing and service of applications.

[12] Whereas that is
permitted by Rule 6(12)(b) there are certain requirements with which
I will deal in due course.

[13] Secondly, as
far as the members of the judiciary are concerned, there has been no
compliance with the relevant provisions of the High Court Act and the
Supreme Court Act relating to the institution of legal proceedings
against members of the judiciary.

[14] The claims for
relief that I revoke the “licences” of the judiciary, is
relief that I simply cannot grant.

[15] The power to
relieve a judge of his duties rests solely with the President who
acts upon the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.

[16] The Applicant
is apparently familiar with the provisions of the Namibian
Constitution, but clearly overlooked the clear provisions of Article
84 which relates to removal from office of members of the Judiciary.

[17] The claims
sounding in money and those are claims for substantial amounts of
damages against all the Respondents are not supported by any facts.

[18] Various
allegations in sweeping terms are made against the individual
respondents without any supporting facts which will support the bare
allegation.

[19] I have
indicated that Rule 6(12)(b), although available to an applicant who
seeks urgent relief, has certain requirements which such an applicant
must comply with in order to have his matter heard as one of urgency.

[20] In essence it
is required of the applicant to fully state the reasons why the
matter is urgent and why he cannot obtain redress by instituting
proceedings in the ordinary course. I directed at the outset of the
hearing that this matter be argued as a separate issue. I pause to
mention that Mr Heathcote at the outset of the proceedings requested
that I refer the Applicant to a psychiatric institution for
observation which application I declined and I need say no more about
that.

[21] The Applicant’s
claim for urgency indeed rests on shaky grounds, both in fact and in
law.

22] There is no
evidence to speak of, that the 1^st
Respondent is in the
process of being sold or closed down, I presume in the sense that it
is being placed either in voluntary or compulsory liquidation.

[23] The only
reference to this is an averment by the Applicant that he has it on
reliable authority that the 1^st
Respondent is being
closed as from today or being sold.

[24] I do not know
who the informant is, how reliable his information is and an
affidavit by the informant would have done a great deal to enlighten
me in that regard. Apart from the factual basis, the fact that the
1^st
Respondent is in the
process of being sold or closed, as the Applicant puts it, does not
render the matter urgent.

[25] If the 1^st
Respondent, which is
a company, is being sold to a different entity, obviously it is sold
with its debts and the Applicant’s claim will not be
extinguished by the mere that the 1^st
Respondent is sold.

[26] Likewise, if
the 1^st
Respondent is
liquidated, either voluntary or by way of a compulsory sequestration,
the Applicant’s claim becomes a claim against the company and
is not extinguished for that reason.

[27] There is
therefore no reason why I should, in order to protect the Applicant’s
claim, interdict anybody from selling or winding up the 1^st
Respondent.

[28] The matter goes
further than that. In its dispute with the 1^st
Respondent, whatever
the merits of it may be, there was no need to join the respondents
being the 5^th
Respondent through
to the 24^th
Respondent. They are
not parties to the dispute between the Applicant and the 1^st
Respondent and there
is nothing before me which indicates that either of them were
instrumental or are instrumental in disposing of or winding up the
1^st
Respondent.

[29] It was unwise
on the part of the Applicant to have joined them in these
proceedings. The Applicant in his address made much of the fact that
he is seeking justice and that reliance should not be placed on
technicalities.

[30] I understand
from that he is asking me to dismiss the point of urgency. Whereas it
is true that justice is attained through aggrieved persons
approaching the Court, it is equally true that in so approaching the
Court they should do so in an orderly process because justice can
only be dispensed with an orderly manner.

[31] That is what
the Rules of Court were designed to achieve. The Rules of Court are
not mere technicalities, they are substantive rules of law with which
Applicants who approach the courts must comply, and the Applicant
will do well to bear that in mind in seeking justice in the courts.

[32] For these
reasons I find that the Applicant was wrong in approaching the Court
on an urgent basis, having made out no case for such relief and in
the result the matter is struck from the roll.

[33] The Applicant
is ordered to pay the costs of the Respondents.

___________

MILLER, AJ

ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT In
Person

ON BEHALF OF
13^TH,
15-18^TH
& 23^RD
RESPONDENTS
Ms. Potgieter

INSTRUCTED BY
Government Attorney

ON BEHALF OF 5^TH
& 10^TH
RESPONDENTS
Mr. Van Zyl

INSTRUCTED BY
G.F. KOPPLINGER

ON BEHALF OF 22^ND
RESPONDENT
Ms. Rakow

INSTRUCTED BY
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ON BEHALF OF 8^TH,
9^TH
& 11^TH
RESPONDENTS
Ms Cagnetta

INSTRUCTED BY P F
KOEP & COMPANY

ON BEHALF OF 6^TH
RESPONDENT
In Person

ON BEHALF OF THE
12^TH
RESPONDENT
In Person