13h00 on 23 February when the papers were being drafted, there had been no response, either in writing or by telephone. [16] The aforesaid of affairs, coupled with the fact that shortly before in January 2012 another town council nearby, namely Oshakati town council, had unilaterally demolished alleged illegal structures, led the applicant to believe that the first respondent may have been engaging the applicant and its members in bad faith and that the first respondent would follow the example of its neighbour. What further troubled the applicant was the fact that the second respondent had previously taken no action to stop the demolition by the Oshakati town council. The applicant then went ahead and lodged this application on 24 February after having served the papers on first respondent’s lawyers at 13h00. [17] At 16h45 on the same day the first respondent filed a notice of opposition and an answering affidavit in which several points in limine are raised. In the affidavit it is stated that the first respondent had instructed Mr Phatela, who also appeared at the hearing, to provide an opinion on the issues previously raised by the applicant and its members and that the opinion is expected soon. It is alleged that Mr Phatela had in the meantime spoken to Mr Watson and informed him that first respondent’s instructing legal practitioner would obtain instructions from the first respondent to give an undertaking not to take the law into their own hands, but to do everything within the ambit of the law. The first respondent’s chief executive officer had at about 12h00 on 24 February 2012 given an oral undertaking to its own lawyers that first respondent
13h00 on 23 February when the papers were being drafted, there had been no response, either in writing or by telephone. [16] The aforesaid of affairs, coupled with the fact that shortly before in January 2012 another town council nearby, namely Oshakati town council, had unilaterally demolished alleged illegal structures, led the applicant to believe that the first respondent may have been engaging the applicant and its members in bad faith and that the first respondent would follow the example of its neighbour. What further troubled the applicant was the fact that the second respondent had previously taken no action to stop the demolition by the Oshakati town council. The applicant then went ahead and lodged this application on 24 February after having served the papers on first respondent’s lawyers at 13h00. [17] At 16h45 on the same day the first respondent filed a notice of opposition and an answering affidavit in which several points in limine are raised. In the affidavit it is stated that the first respondent had instructed Mr Phatela, who also appeared at the hearing, to provide an opinion on the issues previously raised by the applicant and its members and that the opinion is expected soon. It is alleged that Mr Phatela had in the meantime spoken to Mr Watson and informed him that first respondent’s instructing legal practitioner would obtain instructions from the first respondent to give an undertaking not to take the law into their own hands, but to do everything within the ambit of the law. The first respondent’s chief executive officer had at about 12h00 on 24 February 2012 given an oral undertaking to its own lawyers that first respondent