IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN
Case no: A196/2012
In the matter between:
NAMIBIA FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Neutral citation: Christian v
Namibia Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (A 196/2012)
 NAHCMD 99 (12 April 2013)
Coram: Smuts, J
Heard: 18 January 2013
Delivered: 18 January 2013
Reasons sought on: 4 March 2013
Reasons provided on: 12 April
application for recusal not served on respondent – the latter
entitled to service and having an interest in its outcome –
application struck from the roll. Opposed application under Rule 8
(2)(b) of the Supreme Court rules. No heads of argument filed by the
applicant. Matter struck from the roll with costs and not to be
enrolled by him until he pays the respondent’s taxed costs.
 The applicant filed an application
in terms of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules seeking to be
released from the obligation to provide security for the respondent’s
costs of appeal. He also sought condonation for the late filing of
the application. It was launched on 23 August 2012.
 The applicant also filed a recusal
application on the morning of the hearing on 18 January 2013. After
hearing the parties, I struck the recusal application with costs and
made the following order in respect of the application in terms of
Rule 8(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules (the main application)
application in terms of Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme
Court is struck from the roll with costs.
applicant is not permitted to re-enrol the application until the
respondent’s taxed costs have been paid in full. This would not
preclude the respondent from enrolling the matter.”
 On 4 March 2013, the applicant
requested reasons for these orders. I set out the background to those
orders and my reasons for them.
 The main application was opposed
by the respondent. It was referred to case management and on 14
November 2012, this court in case management postponed the matter to
18 January 2013 for the hearing of the application.
 The respondent duly filed heads of
argument in advance of the hearing. But the applicant failed to do so
in accordance with practice directives.
 On the morning of the hearing (on
18 January 2013) the applicant filed a recusal application. It showed
no signs of service on the respondent. When the matter was called,
the applicant sought to move the recusal application. I then enquired
from the applicant if that application had been served on the
respondent. He confirmed that it had not been served on the
respondent and added that it had nothing to do with the respondent.
 Mr Philander, who appeared for the
respondent, confirmed that no recusal application had been served on
the respondent. He also submitted that the respondent had an interest
in such application and required to be served.
 I then proceeded to strike the
recusal application with costs. As I said at the time, I did so
because the respondent plainly had an interest in such an application
and was entitled to be served with it. The failure to do so meant
that it should be struck. This is quite apart from any defects it had
such as the document purporting to be the founding affidavit in
support of it was not by the deponent.
 As to the application in terms of
Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, the applicant confirmed
that he had not filed heads of argument in accordance with the
practice directives. He was aware of the obligation to do so. There
was no application for condonation for failing to do so. Nor was any
explanation sought to be proffered for the failure to file heads. Nor
were any heads of argument tendered in court.
 Mr Philander requested that I
hear the application as the respondent sought finality of the matter.
He submitted that the application was a delaying tactic as the
judgment appealed against had been handed down in May 2011 and the
obligation to find security or bring an application of this nature
arose soon afterwards. This application had however been brought more
than a year later (on 23 August 2012). It was the respondent which
had sought the date of hearing in the course of case management on 14
November 2012 in the absence of the applicant who failed to attend
the case management hearing. The respondent was required to cause
service of the court order postponing the matter for the designated
date of hearing of 18 January 2013. That order was served by the
 In view of the practice directive
and the need to file heads of argument, and the failure on the part
of the applicant to have filed heads or even seek condonation for
that failure, I resolved to strike the application from the roll with
costs. In doing so, I took into account that the applicant is a lay
litigant and the need for a court to permit latitude with regard to
its procedures where persons are not acquainted with them. But in
this instance the applicant is well aware of the need for heads of
argument to be filed in opposed applications and provided no
explanation for his failure to do so when this was raised with him.
In view of the history of matter as set out in the founding papers
and their annexures and in view of submissions before me and in the
exercise of my discretion, I further directed that the applicant is
not permitted to re-enrol the main application until the respondent’s
taxed costs had been paid in full. I further directed that this would
not preclude the respondent from enrolling the matter.
 These are the reasons for the
orders I made on 18 January 2013.
APPLICANT: H. Christian
RESPONDENT: R. Philander
Instructed by Lorentz Angula Inc.