[27] In Colyn v Tiger Food Industries Ltd t/a Meadow Feed Mills Cape, the court made some lapidary remarks that are important in this case. The court said: guiding principle of the common law is certainty of judgments. Once a judgment ‘The is given in a matter it is final. It may not be altered by the judge who delivered it. He becomes functus officio and may not ordinarily vary or rescind his own judgment. . . See also Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd v That is a function of the a court of appeal.’ Genticuro. [28] In the premises, I am of the considered view that the application for the setting aside or variation or correction of the order in question cannot stand. I must emphasise that even if I may have entertained doubts about the correctness of the order handed down by the learned Judge, it would have been legally incorrect for me, being a Judge in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, to be seen to alter a judgment of a fellow judge. That is the role and province of the Supreme Court, in which I cannot venture, save in circumstances describe earlier in this judgment and which I have found are inapplicable in this case. [29] The applicant, in closing, referred the court to the case of Todt v Ipser and submitted that in that case, the Appellate Division of South Africa held that judgments are void in three circumstances, namely where there has been no proper service; where there is no proper mandate or where the court lacks jurisdiction. It was his case that the order made by Usiku J was void as the court lacked jurisdiction. [30] It will be apparent that I have already dealt with this argument elsewhere in the judgment, albeit in a different context. There is no question about the fact that this court had and still has jurisdiction to entertain this matter and when Usiku J heard the matter and granted the order he did, the question of the court’s jurisdiction was never raised and even if it was, it was doomed to fail. I reiterate that if the applicant is of the considered view that the learned Judge adopted a wrong procedure or misinterpreted the rules, as
[27] In Colyn v Tiger Food Industries Ltd t/a Meadow Feed Mills Cape, the court made some lapidary remarks that are important in this case. The court said: ‘The guiding principle of the common law is certainty of judgments. Once a judgment is given in a matter it is final. It may not be altered by the judge who delivered it. He becomes functus officio and may not ordinarily vary or rescind his own judgment. . . That is a function of the a court of appeal.’ See also Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro. [28] In the premises, I am of the considered view that the application for the setting aside or variation or correction of the order in question cannot stand. I must emphasise that even if I may have entertained doubts about the correctness of the order handed down by the learned Judge, it would have been legally incorrect for me, being a Judge in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, to be seen to alter a judgment of a fellow judge. That is the role and province of the Supreme Court, in which I cannot venture, save in circumstances describe earlier in this judgment and which I have found are inapplicable in this case. [29] The applicant, in closing, referred the court to the case of Todt v Ipser and submitted that in that case, the Appellate Division of South Africa held that judgments are void in three circumstances, namely where there has been no proper service; where there is no proper mandate or where the court lacks jurisdiction. It was his case that the order made by Usiku J was void as the court lacked jurisdiction. [30] It will be apparent that I have already dealt with this argument elsewhere in the judgment, albeit in a different context. There is no question about the fact that this court had and still has jurisdiction to entertain this matter and when Usiku J heard the matter and granted the order he did, the question of the court’s jurisdiction was never raised and even if it was, it was doomed to fail. I reiterate that if the applicant is of the considered view that the learned Judge adopted a wrong procedure or misinterpreted the rules, as
Christian%20v%20Namibia%20Financial%20Institutions%20Supervisory%20Authority%20(A%20244-2010)%20[2018]%20NAHCMD%2019%20(8%20February%202018).docx