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.
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.
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.
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.
For
those reasons, which by reference I incorporate mutatis
mutandis herein, the following order
is made:
The application is dismissed with costs.
Cilliers v Government of Namibia and Others ((P) A. 147/2000 ) ((P) A. 147/2000) [2009] NAHC 52 (21 April 2009);