Locus standi in environmental litigation

Ndevahoma v Shimwooshili and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2017/03184) [2019] NAHCMD 32 (25 January 2019);


Customary Law – Communal Land – Communal land rights – Power to evict a leaseholder from a communal land – Whether the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 empowers a leaseholder to cancel a sub-lease and evict a sub lessee from a communal land area.

Headnote and Holding: 

The uncle of the plaintiff and the first defendant had occupied an area called Eengolo-Ondjiina which forms part of communal land as contemplated in s 15 of the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 with the blessing of the Oukwanyama Traditional Authority.

As from 2017, the plaintiff had taken over the management of Eengolo-Ondjiina. In April 2015, the plaintiff signed a Notarial Lease Agreement in respect of Eengolo-Ondjiina with the Government of the Republic of Namibia and during April 2017, the plaintiff was issued with a Certificate of Leasehold in terms of s 33 and Regulation 16 of the Agricultural Communal Land Reform Act, 2002.

After the plaintiff was issued with the certificate of leasehold, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the first defendant, with the plaintiff alleging that, he holds exclusive leasehold or customary land rights in respect of Eengolo-Ondjiina and that he had given the first defendant the right to occupy Eengolo-Ondjiina on certain conditions. Alleging that the first defendant failed to adhere to the conditions in terms of which he was granted permission to occupy Eengolo-Ondjiina, the plaintiff gave notice to the first defendant to vacate Eengolo-Ondjiina by the end of June 2017.  The first defendant did not vacate Eengolo-Ondjiina as demanded by the plaintiff and the plaintiff commenced these proceedings.

The plaintiff’s primary bone of contention was that because of the first defendant’s breach of the conditions in terms of which he was granted permission to occupy Eengolo-Ondjiina, he has withdrawn that permission and the first defendant now occupied Eengolo-Ondjiina without permission, and it is on that ground that he seeks the eviction of the defendant from Eengolo-Ondjiina.

The first defendant was however of the view that the leasehold on which the plaintiff relies is in respect of communal land as contemplated in s 19 of the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 which is not exclusive and is subject to the rights of others, including his (first defendant) right to occupy such land and further that it does not confer a right on the plaintiff to approach the High Court and evict him.

Held that despite the fact that the concept of communal land defies precise definition, it has, in Namibia, generally been understood that communal land include land owned in trust by the government but administered by traditional authorities who make allocation of parcels of land to members of the community, ordinarily but not exclusively to live thereon, till and or graze thereon and generally to make a living, without acquiring ownership or title to that land.

Held further that s17 of the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 makes it very clear that all communal land areas belong to the State, which must keep the land in trust for the benefit of the traditional communities living in those areas. The State is enjoined to put systems in place to make sure that communal lands are administered and managed in the interests of those living in those areas. The Act also makes it clear that communal land cannot be sold as freehold land to any person.

Held further that communal lands may only be occupied or used in line with a right granted under the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002. This includes existing customary land rights (under s 28) and other existing rights to use communal land (under s 35). A person who occupies communal land without having the right to do so can be evicted by a Chief, Traditional Authority or a Communal Land Board.

Namibian Marine Phosphate (Proprietary) Limited v Minister of Environment and Tourism and Others (CA 119/2016) [2018] NAHCMD 122 (11 May 2018);


Statutory Appeal - Section 51(1) of the Environmental Management Act, 7 of 2007 - on points of law only - Meaning - Whether grounds of appeal are based on points of law.

Constitutional law — Fundamental rights — Administrative justice —Failure to invite one of the parties to a dispute to the appeal hearing— fundamentally unfair hearing — Violation of arts 12 and 18 of Constitution.


Headnote and Holding: 


The appellant was granted an environmental clearance certificate for marine phosphate mining by the Environmental Commissioner. The second respondent, a certain Mr Michael Gaweseb, appealed against the Commissioner’s decision, to the Minister. The Minister set aside the granting of the certificate, primarily on the ground that the Commissioner did not adequately consult the public and interested persons.

During the appeal hearing before the Minister, both parties had made written representations. The second respondent completed the appeal Form 3 which was also handed to the appellant and the appellant subsequently, delivered a responding statement thereto. On the day of the hearing, the Minister gave the second respondent an opportunity to make oral submissions, but, the appellant was not informed of the appeal hearing and was thus not present at the appeal hearing. During those submissions, the second respondent introduced a new issue – inadequate consultations, but this issue was not recorded as a ground of appeal on the appeal Form 3 and therefore the appellant had no knowledge of it.

Aggrieved by the Minister’s decision to set aside the environmental clearance certificate which was issued to it by the Commissioner, the appellant appealed, in terms of s 51 of the Act, to this Court against the Minister’s decision. The appellant’s attack on the Minister’s decision was that there was no proper appeal for the Minister to consider, the second respondent had no locus standi to appeal to the Minister and the Minister violated the appellant’s right to a fair hearing and fair administrative action. The Minister and the second respondent opposed the appeal on a variety of grounds. The main ground on which they opposed the appeal is that the appellant’s appeal was allegedly not based on points of law only, but on factual matters.

Held that the second respondent’s appeal before the Minister was compliant with the Regulations made under the Environmental Management Act, 2007.

Held further that in a constitutional State, citizens are entitled to exercise their rights and they are entitled to approach courts, where there is uncertainty as to the law to determine their rights. The court thus found that, in the context of the Act, Mr Gaweseb has a legal grievance and is as such, an aggrieved person entitled to approach courts to determine his rights.

Held further that it is now well established in our law that an administrative act or decision, even if improperly taken, remains effectual until properly set aside and cannot just be ignored. Since the Minister extended the time within which to launch the appeal and the decision to extend the period within which to lodge a s 50 appeal is not the subject of a review application, that decision remains and the appeal was thus lodged within the extended period.

Held furthermore that the question whether or not the s 51 appeal hearing before the Minister violated the appellant’s rights conferred on him by Articles 12 and 18, is a question of law.

Held furthermore that if the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is, indeed, immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision.

McLaren NO v The Municipal Council of Windhoek (A110/2009) [2016] NAHCMD 161 (06 August 2016);

Headnote and Holding: 

The applicants sought to review and set aside the decision of the first respondent to cancel a lease agreement concluded by the 4th applicant after the 4th applicant disregarded environmental standards on wastewater discharge per the agreement.

The court determined whether the first to third applicants’ irregular appointment as liquidators deprived them of locus standi (capacity) to seek review. It was held that these applicants had the required locus standi.

The court also determined whether the application was brought in reasonable time given the delay in filing the application after becoming aware of the cancellation of the lease. It was noted that there is no prescribed time for the institution of review proceedings. However, the court found that the applicants failed to explain the delay and held it to be unreasonable.

The court held that the relationship between the 4th applicant and first respondent was a contractual relationship. The court considered whether the Municipality validly cancelled the lease agreement before the liquidators’ election to continue with the lease agreement. The court considered clause 16.1 of the agreement and observed that the agreement required no formalities for cancellation. It applied the test of whether a reasonable person would conclude that the proper performance will not be forthcoming and held that the Municipality had a right to cancel the lease.

It was also held that the review relief sought was unsustainable since the decision to cancel the agreement did not constitute reviewable administrative action despite being made by a person who would ordinarily perform administrative functions.

The applicants abandoned their claim for declaratory order to exercise an improvement lien and moved for amendment of the relief in prayer 3. However, the amendment was not requested or granted. Hence the two prayers were dismissed.

Accordingly, the matter was dismissed with costs.

Uffindell t/a Aloe Hunting Safaris v Government of Namibia and Others ((P) A. 141/2000 ) ((P) A. 141/2000) [2009] NAHC 51 (20 April 2009);

Headnote and Holding: 

This was an application to review the minister’s decision that differentiated the manner of issuing the sale of trophy hunting concessions as between the applicant and fourth respondent.

The applicant succeeded in obtaining an order to show cause (rule nisi) and an interim interdict of the reliefs in their application to prohibit the implementation of the concessions.

The applicant’s locus standi was challenged during the proceedings. The court applied the reasonable person test and held that the applicant was an ‘aggrieved person’ whose fundamental rights had been infringed or threatened to be infringed.

The court considered whether the minister violated the applicant’s right to equality and held that the minister acted fairly; since the decision was made to redress the injustice of the fourth respondent and did not violate the cabinet’s policy or the constitutional principle of equality.

The court also considered whether the decision violated the applicant’s right to administrative justice as per the concept of legitimate expectation of a hearing. The court applied the rule that the court should consider the existence of a duty to act fairly. The court held that the principles of a sale by private treaty did not require the minister to afford all professional hunters an opportunity to be heard. Having found that the concession was legally granted, the court did not deal further with the issue on violation of the freedom of economic activity.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for interdictory relief and made an order as to costs.

Namibia Breweries Ltd v Seelenbinder Henning & Parnters (PI1606/99 ) [2002] NAHC 2 (12 February 2002);

Headnote and Holding: 

The matter dealt with an exception raised in the High Court of Namibia by the defendant to the plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of duty to perform professional work. The plaintiff’s claim was that on account of the defendant’s breach, large quantities of effluent leaked out of the reticulation system beneath its bottling plant and it sustained damage to its property.
The main issue was when the plaintiff’s cause of action arose and if the plaintiff was the owner of the property at the time of the alleged damage. Under this issue the court sought to determine whether the pipes in question were damaged “after or upon installation”.
The defendant had argued that the plaintiff’s claim was not appropriate in delict as the breach was not wrongful for purposes of Aquilian liability. The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff did not have a proprietary interest in the property at the time of the alleged breach.
The court held that the duty of care of a professional could be extended to a person who later becomes the owner of a property as the damage to the pipes remained latent until discovered when the plaintiff acquired the property. The court further held that the Aquilian action forms a basis for such a remedy and that there were considerations of policy and convenience which prima facie allowed for an extension in the circumstances
Accordingly, the defendant’s application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Zeraeua Traditional Authority v Mathe and Others (A 169/2013) [2013] NAHCMD 163 (13 June 2013);

Headnote and Holding: 

The court considered an urgent application for spoliation orders (common law remedy) against the first to eleventh respondents or alternatively, an eviction order against them.

The thirteenth respondent purchased three farms which were adjacent to land which was incorporated in a communal area falling under the jurisdiction of the first applicant, a traditional authority. These farms were intended to be incorporated into the communal land falling under the applicant’s jurisdiction. The Government of Namibia initiated the process of incorporating these farms into the communal area under the first applicant through a notice published in the Government Gazette pursuant to the provisions of the Communal Land Reform Act 5 of 2002. 

The issue facing the court was whether the first to eleventh respondents had the prerogative to occupy the farms with their cattle grazing on them, without authority to do so. The respondents argued that the applicant lacked locus standi (capacity) to bring the application since the land had not yet been incorporated into the communal area by way of notice in the Government Gazette, as required by the act, thus the applicant did not have jurisdiction over the land. 

The application for spoliation was refused because the applicant could not show deprivation of possession by reason of the respondents’ occupation which predates its possession and control. Thus, the court found that the respondents could not establish any right to be on the farms. 

The eviction order was granted with costs.

Namib Plains Farming and Tourism CC v Valencia Uranium (Pty) Ltd and Others (SA 25/2008) [2011] NASC 3 (19 May 2011);

Headnote and Holding: 

In this Supreme Court case, the first respondent applied for the permit to drill boreholes in the Khan River for uranium mining activities. Subsequently, the second respondent granted the rights to use the boreholes and the water to the first respondent allegedly in the exercise of its powers provided under the Water Act of 1954.  The appellant’s case against the respondents was that the wildlife on its farm depended on the naturally occurring underground water to support natural habitats. Overusing the water from the rare sources in the area would, therefore, disturb the ecosystem. 

At the High Court level, the issue was to determine whether under the act the second respondent had the powers to grant such rights. The High Court held that the powers to grant such rights were limited to subterranean waters. Moreover, the court held that since under the act sections 27, 28 and 30, the president proclaims the underground waters. The president had never declared the areas allocated to the first respondent as such the permits were a nullity. As a result, there was nothing to be determined by the court in favour of the appellant. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that the permit issued was a nullity. However, it held that the High Court ought to have decided the case in favour of the appellant since, in law, illegal acts can create reviewable actions. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s claim.

Auala v S (SA 42/2008) [2010] NASC 3 (27 April 2010);

Headnote and Holding: 

This Supreme Court case concerned an appeal against the ruling of the High Court that found the appellant guilty primarily on counts of: (1) theft of unpolished diamonds in contravention of section 74 of Act 13 of 1999; alternatively, possession of unpolished diamonds in contravention of section 30(11) of Act 13 of 1999; (2) robbery; (3) malicious damage to property; and 4) escaping before being locked up in contravention of section 51(1) of Act 51 of 1977. 

The appellant was primarily charged in the High Court for stealing unpolished diamonds and fleeing arrest. He was convicted on all the counts and sentenced to both a jail term and payment of fine

The appellant felt aggrieved and appealed to the Supreme Court mainly on the ground that the prosecution side failed to establish that the mining company was the lawful owner of the alleged stolen diamond. 

The court held that the evidence obtained from the surveillance cameras clearly showed that the unpolished diamond that the appellant was trying to steal was discovered and recovered from him.  The court held that he was caught right at the exit of the mining site. So generally, the mining company was the one licensed to exploit and trade the diamond in that area the court a quo was justified to take a judicial notice that the diamonds belonged to the complainant. 

The court therefore refrained from disturbing both the conviction and the sentence of the High Court, so the appeal was dismissed.

Namibia Grape Growers and Exporters Association and Others v Ministry of Mines and Energy and Others (SA14/02 ) [2004] NASC 6 (25 November 2004);

Headnote and Holding: 

This case was an appeal in the Supreme Court of Namibia against a judgment that dismissed the application brought by the appellants on an urgent basis and discharging a court order issued on 5 May 2000.  This matter concerned provisions of the Minerals (Prospecting and Mining) Act No. 33 of 1992. An Exclusive Prospecting Licence 2101 (EPL 2101) was transferred to the third respondent, involved in diamond mining, on 25 June 1997 but it was alleged that its renewal happened without any notice to the landowner, involved in growing and marketing grapes, and who is one of the appellants in the case. The third respondent intended to excavate four pits of which two were situated within the area demarcated for further grape cultivation.

The appeal focused on three main issues, namely the constitutionality of Part XV of the Minerals Act, the review application regarding the renewal of EPL 2101 in 1998 and the application based on the provisions of section 52 of the same act.  

The court concluded that Part XV was enacted in the public interest and for a legitimate object and is a reasonable mechanism whereby similar contesting rights are balanced to ensure equal protection of those rights in terms of the Constitution.  It was on this basis that it could not be said that the provisions of Part XV of the Minerals Act are unconstitutional.  Accordingly, the appellants’ appeal was dismissed with costs including those for the postponement of the appeal and further argument.