Rule 14 (3) when a defendant delivers a notice of intention to defend he or she must in that notice – (a) … (b) appoint an address within a flexible radius from the office of the registrar, not being a post office box or poste restante, for service on him or her of all documents in that action. [4] A Windhoek address for the purposes of proceedings in Oshakati, a distance of 700± kilometres is not in accordance with the rules. [5] Defendant, therefore, has two short comings, firstly, neither herself nor her legal practitioner and even the correspondent’s legal practitioner appeared in court as required by the rules and no explanation as to what the current position is, was given. Secondly, they failed to provide an address for service in terms of the rules. [6] This court, has, for time without number advised and warned legal practitioners that they should carry out their mandates professionally and diligently. That expectation is, indeed lacking in the instructing legal practitioner. [7] The civil proceedings in this jurisdiction are now firmly administered under the case management system which effectively took away the important powers from litigants and their legal practitioners and hence made them court-driven. It is for that reason that these courts view any transgression by litigants and/or their legal practitioners with a jaundice eye. In order to rein in errant legal practitioners a sanctions provision was inserted in the new rules for that purpose. These courts will therefore not be found wanting where such situation demands. [8] Any litigant who to comply with these rules and in the absence of any reasonable explanation as to the said failure stands the risk of censure. This case is deserving of one. While it will be fitting to censure defendant, the court has to give a serious consideration of the sanction bearing in mind the circumstances surrounding the case and that each case is to be determined on its own merits. [9] This is a matrimonial matter. It is trite that these courts are loathe to punish litigants in matrimonial matters as they are highly emotional and at the same time involve litigants’ change of status. I am alive to the fact that defendant has always
Rule 14 (3) when a defendant delivers a notice of intention to defend he or she must in that notice – (a) … (b) appoint an address within a flexible radius from the office of the registrar, not being a post office box or poste restante, for service on him or her of all documents in that action. [4] A Windhoek address for the purposes of proceedings in Oshakati, a distance of 700± kilometres is not in accordance with the rules. [5] Defendant, therefore, has two short comings, firstly, neither herself nor her legal practitioner and even the correspondent’s legal practitioner appeared in court as required by the rules and no explanation as to what the current position is, was given. Secondly, they failed to provide an address for service in terms of the rules. [6] This court, has, for time without number advised and warned legal practitioners that they should carry out their mandates professionally and diligently. That expectation is, indeed lacking in the instructing legal practitioner. [7] The civil proceedings in this jurisdiction are now firmly administered under the case management system which effectively took away the important powers from litigants and their legal practitioners and hence made them court-driven. It is for that reason that these courts view any transgression by litigants and/or their legal practitioners with a jaundice eye. In order to rein in errant legal practitioners a sanctions provision was inserted in the new rules for that purpose. These courts will therefore not be found wanting where such situation demands. [8] Any litigant who to comply with these rules and in the absence of any reasonable explanation as to the said failure stands the risk of censure. This case is deserving of one. While it will be fitting to censure defendant, the court has to give a serious consideration of the sanction bearing in mind the circumstances surrounding the case and that each case is to be determined on its own merits. [9] This is a matrimonial matter. It is trite that these courts are loathe to punish litigants in matrimonial matters as they are highly emotional and at the same time involve litigants’ change of status. I am alive to the fact that defendant has always
Iita%20v%20Iita%20(I%20207-2015)%20[2017]%20NAHCNLD%2037%20(08%20May%202017).docx