Only the second respondent opposed the application. In her opposition, second respondent raised three points in limine: (1) Ms Van Zyl’s authority to institute the proceedings; (2) the alleged failure by applicant to comply with rule 76 and (3) the alleged delay by the applicant to institute the review proceedings. Held, it is immaterial whether the resolution authorizes Ms Van Zyl to launch the application or ratifies her action of launching the application. In the matter of Ganes and Another v Telecom Namibia Ltd Streicher JA held that the deponent to an affidavit in motion proceedings need not be authorised by the party concerned to depose to the affidavit. It is the institution of the proceedings and the prosecution thereof which must be authorised. The first point in limine accordingly fails. Held further that, the second point in limine is meritless and must fail. that, the length of time that had lapsed between the cause of action Held furthermore arising and the launching of the review is not by itself an indication of unreasonable delay. The court found that the launch of the review application on 9 April 2015 would not have prejudice any of the respondents nor did it have a negative impact on the finalization of the matter. Held furthermore that, the evidence on which the second respondent relied to find that the repairs of the compressors were done in a professional and workmanlike manner is not direct evidence based on the witnesses personal knowledge but were inferences drawn by the witnesses from other facts and was thus opinion evidence. That opinion evidence was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, it did not matter how credible or reliable the witnesses were. REASONS UEITELE, J Introduction
Only the second respondent opposed the application. In her opposition, second respondent raised three points in limine: (1) Ms Van Zyl’s authority to institute the proceedings; (2) the alleged failure by applicant to comply with rule 76 and (3) the alleged delay by the applicant to institute the review proceedings. Held, it is immaterial whether the resolution authorizes Ms Van Zyl to launch the application or ratifies her action of launching the application. In the matter of Ganes and Another v Telecom Namibia Ltd Streicher JA held that the deponent to an affidavit in motion proceedings need not be authorised by the party concerned to depose to the affidavit. It is the institution of the proceedings and the prosecution thereof which must be authorised. The first point in limine accordingly fails. Held further that, the second point in limine is meritless and must fail. Held furthermore that, the length of time that had lapsed between the cause of action arising and the launching of the review is not by itself an indication of unreasonable delay. The court found that the launch of the review application on 9 April 2015 would not have prejudice any of the respondents nor did it have a negative impact on the finalization of the matter. Held furthermore that, the evidence on which the second respondent relied to find that the repairs of the compressors were done in a professional and workmanlike manner is not direct evidence based on the witnesses personal knowledge but were inferences drawn by the witnesses from other facts and was thus opinion evidence. That opinion evidence was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, it did not matter how credible or reliable the witnesses were. REASONS UEITELE, J Introduction
JB%20Cooling%20and%20Refrigeration%20%20v%20Dean%20Jacques%20Willemse%20%20(A%2076-2015)%20[2016]%20NAHCMD%208%20(20%20January%202016).docx