The supporting affidavit for the intended application purports to explain how this situation However, it is not necessary to consider the intended amendment because the record before this court bears no indication that the application was made, and there is no explanation why it was not made. I now turn to the merits of the matter. The case of the appellant was based on the following allegations or complaints: That there was no compulsive requirement for the change of name of the ‘1. street; am opposing the proposed name change for this reason and other “I reasons set out in this affidavit” (para 4 of the affidavit). The amounts of rates and taxes and municipal fees and other expenses applicant pays per month or per year. Neither the respondent nor Joseph Mukwayu Ithana nor Swapo have made any contribution towards making the street what it is today. is for this reason that I submit that the respondent “It should have at least consulted me” and taken into my view and those “account of all other residents of Gloudina street before making any decision relating to the change of name and should at least have given us an opportunity to oppose or comment on the proposed name change.” (para 5 of the affidavit). respondent has not been fair and reasonable towards us” in taking the “The decision to change the name of Uhland street and Gloudina street as proposed. I rely on this article of our Constitution (Art 18) (para 5 of the affidavit). The fact that the street had this name for over thirty (30) years and bears the name and maps of Namibia, all diagrams and all plan registered at the Surveyors office and Deeds office. the name of the street would be “Changing confusing” to all and sundry. street name is not offensive to anyone, and “The
The supporting affidavit for the intended application purports to explain how this situation However, it is not necessary to consider the intended amendment because the record before this court bears no indication that the application was made, and there is no explanation why it was not made. I now turn to the merits of the matter. The case of the appellant was based on the following allegations or complaints: ‘1. That there was no compulsive requirement for the change of name of the street; “I am opposing the proposed name change for this reason and other reasons set out in this affidavit” (para 4 of the affidavit). The amounts of rates and taxes and municipal fees and other expenses applicant pays per month or per year. Neither the respondent nor Joseph Mukwayu Ithana nor Swapo have made any contribution towards making the street what it is today. “It is for this reason that I submit that the respondent should have at least consulted me” and taken into “account my view and those of all other residents of Gloudina street before making any decision relating to the change of name and should at least have given us an opportunity to oppose or comment on the proposed name change.” (para 5 of the affidavit). “The respondent has not been fair and reasonable towards us” in taking the decision to change the name of Uhland street and Gloudina street as proposed. I rely on this article of our Constitution (Art 18) (para 5 of the affidavit). The fact that the street had this name for over thirty (30) years and bears the name and maps of Namibia, all diagrams and all plan registered at the Surveyors office and Deeds office. “Changing the name of the street would be confusing” to all and sundry. “The street name is not offensive to anyone, and
Vaatz%20v%20Municipal%20Council%20of%20the%20Municipality%20of%20Windhoek%20(SA%2053-2011)[2016]%20NASC%20(30%20September%202016).docx