be poignantly stated that avenues supplied by the law must be used for the correct purposes and not applied to dilatory tactics or to obtain an undue advantage, considering that the right to withhold labour is protected under Art. 21 of the Namibian Constitution. The criticism to the applicants’ approach is in my view condign. [41] In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that there was no proper dispute pending between the parties envisaged in terms of the Act which was reported and which could ground the jurisdictional facts that bring the provisions of s. 117 (1) (e) of the Act into play. The disparate interpretation and application to be accorded the strike rules do not, with respect, properly construed, constitute a dispute that would enable the court to grant injunctive relief as provided for in the said provision of the Act. [42] One must not lose sight of the fact that the court’s power of review under s. 117 (1) (c) concerns any decision of any body or official provided in terms of any other Act, i.e. any other Act than the Labour Act. No such other Act has been cited in this matter and the said section does not apply either. Be that as it may, the applicants rely on s. 117 (b) of the Act in the review they seek. I deal with that issue below. [43] I should also mention, for what it is worth, that the very strike rules, provide a mechanism and route for pursuing any contentions about the interpretation and application of strike rules by any of the parties. At para 13 titled, the ‘GENERAL’, following is recorded: dispute relating to the interpretation and/or application of these Rules, or alleged ‘Any breach thereof, the party may lodge an urgent application with the Labour Court.’ [44] It is clear that the strike rules, as recorded above, provided the route to be followed if any of the parties raised a dispute about the interpretation of the said rules. The prescribed route was not to lodge a dispute with the Labour Commissioner and then to approach the court on the basis that a dispute had been lodged and awaiting determination at the office of the Labour Commissioner and on that basis, seek an
be poignantly stated that avenues supplied by the law must be used for the correct purposes and not applied to dilatory tactics or to obtain an undue advantage, considering that the right to withhold labour is protected under Art. 21 of the Namibian Constitution. The criticism to the applicants’ approach is in my view condign. [41] In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that there was no proper dispute pending between the parties envisaged in terms of the Act which was reported and which could ground the jurisdictional facts that bring the provisions of s. 117 (1) (e) of the Act into play. The disparate interpretation and application to be accorded the strike rules do not, with respect, properly construed, constitute a dispute that would enable the court to grant injunctive relief as provided for in the said provision of the Act. [42] One must not lose sight of the fact that the court’s power of review under s. 117 (1) (c) concerns any decision of any body or official provided in terms of any other Act, i.e. any other Act than the Labour Act. No such other Act has been cited in this matter and the said section does not apply either. Be that as it may, the applicants rely on s. 117 (b) of the Act in the review they seek. I deal with that issue below. [43] I should also mention, for what it is worth, that the very strike rules, provide a mechanism and route for pursuing any contentions about the interpretation and application of strike rules by any of the parties. At para 13 titled, ‘GENERAL’, the following is recorded: ‘Any dispute relating to the interpretation and/or application of these Rules, or alleged breach thereof, the party may lodge an urgent application with the Labour Court.’ [44] It is clear that the strike rules, as recorded above, provided the route to be followed if any of the parties raised a dispute about the interpretation of the said rules. The prescribed route was not to lodge a dispute with the Labour Commissioner and then to approach the court on the basis that a dispute had been lodged and awaiting determination at the office of the Labour Commissioner and on that basis, seek an
The%20Prime%20Minister%20%20v%20Namibia%20National%20Teachers%20Union%20(LC%20151-2015)%20[2016]%20NAHCMD%2041%20(24%20October%202016).docx