[66] As set out before in this judgment, the applicants’ case is that on 23 March 2006 Mr Namandje explained the purpose of his attendance on behalf of the first applicant in open court and that the matter was further discussed in chambers. [67] The first respondent, on the other hand, avers in her answering affidavit that no application in terms of section 13(2) of the Inquests Act was brought by the first applicant until he and the other applicants made such an application on 27 March 2006. She says, however, that when Mr Namandje appeared on 23 March 2006 he indicated that he was representing the first applicant at the inquest, specifically in relation to the evidence of some of the witnesses that were to be called. She then inquired from him what interest his client had in the issue of the inquest, but that Mr Namandje could not give her an answer, whereupon she invited him to discuss the matter in chambers to resolve the issue. In chambers she allegedly explained that section 13(2) requires that the first respondent should satisfy her that he has a substantial interest in the issue of the inquest, but that Mr Namandje was unable to specify his client’s interest. He said that he would only like to sit in when Mr Murorua testifies. She however told him that he could also be present when his client testifies. She ruled that Mr Namandje could not examine witnesses due to the fact that no substantial interest in the issue of the inquest had been showed. She continues to state in paragraph 15 of her affidavit: I received the inquest docket I read through all the statements. ‘When This included the statements made by applicants. After reading the statements, I was not satisfied that applicants had a substantial interest in the issue of the inquest. None of the applicants’ statements indicated that the death of the deceased had been brought about by an act or omission which could amount to an offence on their part. The Prosecutor General also had declined to prosecute on the available evidence. I therefore decided that they should be subpoenaed as ordinary witnesses. This did not preclude applicants from bringing an application at any time, to be
[66] As set out before in this judgment, the applicants’ case is that on 23 March 2006 Mr Namandje explained the purpose of his attendance on behalf of the first applicant in open court and that the matter was further discussed in chambers. [67] The first respondent, on the other hand, avers in her answering affidavit that no application in terms of section 13(2) of the Inquests Act was brought by the first applicant until he and the other applicants made such an application on 27 March 2006. She says, however, that when Mr Namandje appeared on 23 March 2006 he indicated that he was representing the first applicant at the inquest, specifically in relation to the evidence of some of the witnesses that were to be called. She then inquired from him what interest his client had in the issue of the inquest, but that Mr Namandje could not give her an answer, whereupon she invited him to discuss the matter in chambers to resolve the issue. In chambers she allegedly explained that section 13(2) requires that the first respondent should satisfy her that he has a substantial interest in the issue of the inquest, but that Mr Namandje was unable to specify his client’s interest. He said that he would only like to sit in when Mr Murorua testifies. She however told him that he could also be present when his client testifies. She ruled that Mr Namandje could not examine witnesses due to the fact that no substantial interest in the issue of the inquest had been showed. She continues to state in paragraph 15 of her affidavit: ‘When I received the inquest docket I read through all the statements. This included the statements made by applicants. After reading the statements, I was not satisfied that applicants had a substantial interest in the issue of the inquest. None of the applicants’ statements indicated that the death of the deceased had been brought about by an act or omission which could amount to an offence on their part. The Prosecutor General also had declined to prosecute on the available evidence. I therefore decided that they should be subpoenaed as ordinary witnesses. This did not preclude applicants from bringing an application at any time, to be
Sheehama%20v%20Mahali%20NO%20(A93-2006)%20[2013]%20NAHCMD%20%20372%20%20(19%20December%202013).docx