The accordingly struck the matter from the roll and gave leave to the applicant to re-enrol her application for leave to appeal and to proceed with the other relief in the normal course on proof that she had complied with the existing Court order as far as the enrolment and placement of the children in the hostel was concerned. Mukata v Appolus (I 3396/2014) [2015] NAHCMD 54 (12 March 2015) Summary: Practice Applications and motions Interlocutory application Applicant – – – launched application for summary judgment without complying with rule 32(9) and (10) of the rules Court held that an applicant for summary judgment must comply with rule – 32(9) and (10) which are peremptory Consequently, application dismissed with costs. – Mukendwa v Minister of Safety and Security (I 490/2013) [2015] NAHCMD 109 (29 April 2015). Summary: On 26 March 2015 the plaintiff caused a subpoena to be issued out of this court. In that subpoena, two persons namely Ms. O.M Imalwa, who is the current Prosecutor General and Mr. JR Walters who is the current Ombudsman, but who was the Acting Prosecutor General between the period December 2002 to December 2003, are required to appear in person before this court and to remain in attendance until excused by the court in order to testify on behalf of the plaintiff in regard to all matters with his or her knowledge relating to an action which is pending in this court. The parties exchanged pleadings and in that process the plaintiff realized that in addition to the documents already discovered by the defendants there were additional documents which may be relevant to the dispute and which the defendants did not discover it called upon the defendants to discover the identified documents. On 24 April 2015, the defendants gave notice to the plaintiff that they will at the outset of the hearing of this matter apply for the setting aside of the subpoena issued at the behest of the plaintiff. The grounds on which the defendants rely for the setting aside of the subpoena are that subpoena amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. During the arguments counsel for the plaintiff conceded that he would not persist with the requirement that Mr. Walters produce the docket handed over by the ‘police Namibian Police to the office of the Prosecutor General, and any other documents the Prosecutor General relied on when she decided to prosecute plaintiff for High Treason and 277 other charges.’
The accordingly struck the matter from the roll and gave leave to the applicant to re-enrol her application for leave to appeal and to proceed with the other relief in the normal course on proof that she had complied with the existing Court order as far as the enrolment and placement of the children in the hostel was concerned. Mukata v Appolus (I 3396/2014) [2015] NAHCMD 54 (12 March 2015) Summary: Practice – Applications and motions – Interlocutory application – Applicant launched application for summary judgment without complying with rule 32(9) and (10) of the rules – Court held that an applicant for summary judgment must comply with rule 32(9) and (10) which are peremptory – Consequently, application dismissed with costs. Mukendwa v Minister of Safety and Security (I 490/2013) [2015] NAHCMD 109 (29 April 2015). Summary: On 26 March 2015 the plaintiff caused a subpoena to be issued out of this court. In that subpoena, two persons namely Ms. O.M Imalwa, who is the current Prosecutor General and Mr. JR Walters who is the current Ombudsman, but who was the Acting Prosecutor General between the period December 2002 to December 2003, are required to appear in person before this court and to remain in attendance until excused by the court in order to testify on behalf of the plaintiff in regard to all matters with his or her knowledge relating to an action which is pending in this court. The parties exchanged pleadings and in that process the plaintiff realized that in addition to the documents already discovered by the defendants there were additional documents which may be relevant to the dispute and which the defendants did not discover it called upon the defendants to discover the identified documents. On 24 April 2015, the defendants gave notice to the plaintiff that they will at the outset of the hearing of this matter apply for the setting aside of the subpoena issued at the behest of the plaintiff. The grounds on which the defendants rely for the setting aside of the subpoena are that subpoena amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. During the arguments counsel for the plaintiff conceded that he would not persist with the requirement that Mr. Walters produce the ‘police docket handed over by the Namibian Police to the office of the Prosecutor General, and any other documents the Prosecutor General relied on when she decided to prosecute plaintiff for High Treason and 277 other charges.’
2015%20Unreported%20Civil%20Judment%20Index.docx