Rule 32(1), cannot be read in isolation and Rule 32(1) should be read with Rules 32(9) and (10). [20] It is also clear from the order that was made by Miller AJ, on the 29th of September 2017, through which he gave directions as to the procedure to be followed a point that was strongly relied upon by Mrs Angula that he settled one – – issue between the parties, namely, what the procedure was, that had to be followed? This he did, through his direction that an application for reinstatement would have to be brought. [21] The question of course remains whether or not those directions also absolved the parties, and in this instance mainly, and more specifically the plaintiff/applicant, from complying with Rules 32(9) and (10). [22] Now, on a closer analysis of sub-rule (9), it appears that the wishing to bring any interlocutory proceedings must comply with the sub-rule (9). I need to add here immediately that I keep in mind that the applicant clearly, in this instance, did not wish to bring any application for reinstatement and was, so to speak, forced by court order to bring such application. However, whether or not such bringing was voluntary or by direction of the court, the rule is quite clear. The rule required of the plaintiff/applicant - before it’s launching - and in this instance this was before the delivery of the application as per the judge’s direction by 6 October 2017, that the plaintiff/applicant had to engage the other party - and in the words of the rule that – the plaintiff/applicant had to seek an amicable resolution thereof with the defendant/respondent before it would have been entitled to deliver same for the adjudication of the court. [23] I pause here to mention incidentally what type of resolution still remained open to the parties to seek an amicable resolution on, in the circumstances where their differences, relating to the procedure to be followed, had already been settled by court order. Quite clearly - and this was an aspect that was also taken up by the court with Mrs Angula - what was left - and what in my view the parties still had to do - was to engage each other in order to seek an amicable resolution in regard to the merits of the application for reinstatement.
Rule 32(1), cannot be read in isolation and Rule 32(1) should be read with Rules 32(9) and (10). [20] It is also clear from the order that was made by Miller AJ, on the 29th of September 2017, through which he gave directions as to the procedure to be followed – a point that was strongly relied upon by Mrs Angula – that he settled one issue between the parties, namely, what the procedure was, that had to be followed? This he did, through his direction that an application for reinstatement would have to be brought. [21] The question of course remains whether or not those directions also absolved the parties, and in this instance mainly, and more specifically the plaintiff/applicant, from complying with Rules 32(9) and (10). [22] Now, on a closer analysis of sub-rule (9), it appears that the wishing to bring any interlocutory proceedings must comply with the sub-rule (9). I need to add here immediately that I keep in mind that the applicant clearly, in this instance, did not wish to bring any application for reinstatement and was, so to speak, forced by court order to bring such application. However, whether or not such bringing was voluntary or by direction of the court, the rule is quite clear. The rule required of the plaintiff/applicant - before it’s launching - and in this instance this was before the delivery of the application as per the judge’s direction by 6 October 2017, that the plaintiff/applicant had to engage the other party - and in the words of the rule – that the plaintiff/applicant had to seek an amicable resolution thereof with the defendant/respondent before it would have been entitled to deliver same for the adjudication of the court. [23] I pause here to mention incidentally what type of resolution still remained open to the parties to seek an amicable resolution on, in the circumstances where their differences, relating to the procedure to be followed, had already been settled by court order. Quite clearly - and this was an aspect that was also taken up by the court with Mrs Angula - what was left - and what in my view the parties still had to do - was to engage each other in order to seek an amicable resolution in regard to the merits of the application for reinstatement.
Standard%20Bank%20of%20Namibia%20Limited%20v%20Nekwaya%20(HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2017-01164)%20[2017]%20NAHCMD%20365%20(01%20November%202017).docx