Summary: Applications and motions Urgent applications Requirements of rule – – 6(12)(b) are circumstances relating to urgency which must be explicitly set out and the reasons why an applicant could not be afforded substantial redress in due course must also be explicitly set out in founding affidavit In instant case the court found – that the applicant has not satisfied at all the two requirements of rule 6(12)(b) of the rules of court Court found further that the facts relied on in the founding affidavit – cannot support the three disparate orders sought by the applicant Court concluded – that the nature of the orders sought, namely, ‘interim injunction order’, ‘declaratory and in the same breath is vague and the orders order’ ‘mandatory injunction order’ are impermissible to grant Consequently the court dismissed the application with – costs. Flynote: Pleadings Lay person representing himself or herself Court held – – that the fact that the court ought to construe generously and in the light most favourable to the lay person representing himself or herself should not be taken too far to render the rules of court otiose because that would not conduce to due administration of justice Court held that a respondent must always be sufficiently – informed on the papers as to what case the respondent is to meet to enable the respondent to answer adequately. Summary: Pleadings Lay person representing himself Court held that the court – – ought to construe generously and in the light most favourable to the lay person representing himself or herself should not be taken too far to render the rules of court otiose because that would not conduce to due administration of justice A – respondent should always be sufficiently informed on the papers as to what case the respondent is to meet to enable the respondent to answer adequately In the instant – case court found that on the papers the nature of the orders sought is vague and it was impermissible to grant the orders sought It is clear whether the applicant – seeks interim or final relief The three orders sought are so disparate and yet the – applicant relies on the same facts for all the orders In any case, the court found – that the facts relied on cannot support the grant any of the orders sought – Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs. ORDER
Summary: Applications and motions – Urgent applications – Requirements of rule 6(12)(b) are circumstances relating to urgency which must be explicitly set out and the reasons why an applicant could not be afforded substantial redress in due course must also be explicitly set out in founding affidavit – In instant case the court found that the applicant has not satisfied at all the two requirements of rule 6(12)(b) of the rules of court – Court found further that the facts relied on in the founding affidavit cannot support the three disparate orders sought by the applicant – Court concluded that the nature of the orders sought, namely, ‘interim injunction order’, ‘declaratory order’ and ‘mandatory injunction order’ in the same breath is vague and the orders are impermissible to grant – Consequently the court dismissed the application with costs. Flynote: Pleadings – Lay person representing himself or herself – Court held that the fact that the court ought to construe generously and in the light most favourable to the lay person representing himself or herself should not be taken too far to render the rules of court otiose because that would not conduce to due administration of justice – Court held that a respondent must always be sufficiently informed on the papers as to what case the respondent is to meet to enable the respondent to answer adequately. Summary: Pleadings – Lay person representing himself – Court held that the court ought to construe generously and in the light most favourable to the lay person representing himself or herself should not be taken too far to render the rules of court otiose because that would not conduce to due administration of justice – A respondent should always be sufficiently informed on the papers as to what case the respondent is to meet to enable the respondent to answer adequately – In the instant case court found that on the papers the nature of the orders sought is vague and it was impermissible to grant the orders sought – It is clear whether the applicant seeks interim or final relief – The three orders sought are so disparate and yet the applicant relies on the same facts for all the orders – In any case, the court found that the facts relied on cannot support the grant any of the orders sought – Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs. ORDER
Heita%20v%20The%20Minister%20of%20Safety%20and%20Security%20(A%20380-2013)[2013]NAHCMD%20330%20(8%20November%202013).docx