this regard and this is an issue that the court may, all things being equal, have to deal with. [10] Before I can deal with these and other issues for determination, I find it appropriate to point out that regardless of the divergent views and postures adopted by the protagonists regarding most of the issues in contention, there are at the least, two important issues upon which unanimity, although not reached, a determination can be made, based on the version, which it appears the applicant is not able to respondent’s deny. This is consistent with what is referred to as the rule in civil Plascons Evan’s procedure. [11] The first is that the criminal proceedings were postponed by the Windhoek Magistrates Court with the consent of all the parties, to 22 June 2018. This was to allow further investigations into the charges preferred to be pursued. That, in my view, is a matter that I can regard as settled. I say so in view of the fact that that was the reason advanced and on the basis of which the Court postponed the matter to Magistrate’s 22 June, as aforesaid. No issue is raised about the correctness of the respondent’s position that the investigations in that matter have not been concluded. In this regard, Mr. Marondedze, an officer of the court, has stated on oath that this is the correct position and I cannot, in the circumstances, particularly in the absence of anything suggesting the contrary, discard or debunk his evidence without ceremony. I therefor hold this for a fact. [12] The second issue, relates to the which is sought to be produced in this ‘record’ application. The applicant, in his replying affidavit, did not contest the correctness of Mr. in this regard that the said record is in fact the docket. In the Marondedze’s assertion heads of argument, the applicant, for the first time asserts that this is a matter within the peculiar knowledge of the respondent and to which he is not privy. Mr. Marondedze, an officer of the court, has, again stated on oath that this is the position. Owing to the fact that he has stated so, I have no basis upon which I can find otherwise on this issue. It would be a sad day, if not doomsday itself, when officers of this court would make
this regard and this is an issue that the court may, all things being equal, have to deal with. [10] Before I can deal with these and other issues for determination, I find it appropriate to point out that regardless of the divergent views and postures adopted by the protagonists regarding most of the issues in contention, there are at the least, two important issues upon which unanimity, although not reached, a determination can be made, based on the respondent’s version, which it appears the applicant is not able to deny. This is consistent with what is referred to as the Plascons Evan’s rule in civil procedure. [11] The first is that the criminal proceedings were postponed by the Windhoek Magistrates Court with the consent of all the parties, to 22 June 2018. This was to allow further investigations into the charges preferred to be pursued. That, in my view, is a matter that I can regard as settled. I say so in view of the fact that that was the reason advanced and on the basis of which the Magistrate’s Court postponed the matter to 22 June, as aforesaid. No issue is raised about the correctness of the respondent’s position that the investigations in that matter have not been concluded. In this regard, Mr. Marondedze, an officer of the court, has stated on oath that this is the correct position and I cannot, in the circumstances, particularly in the absence of anything suggesting the contrary, discard or debunk his evidence without ceremony. I therefor hold this for a fact. [12] The second issue, relates to the ‘record’ which is sought to be produced in this application. The applicant, in his replying affidavit, did not contest the correctness of Mr. Marondedze’s assertion in this regard that the said record is in fact the docket. In the heads of argument, the applicant, for the first time asserts that this is a matter within the peculiar knowledge of the respondent and to which he is not privy. Mr. Marondedze, an officer of the court, has, again stated on oath that this is the position. Owing to the fact that he has stated so, I have no basis upon which I can find otherwise on this issue. It would be a sad day, if not doomsday itself, when officers of this court would make