Heard: 22 April 2015; 08 December 2015; Delivered: 29 February 2016 Flynote: Practice Review application Locus standi Party must have real – – – and substantial interest in the outcome of the case Applicant failing to persuade the – Court of direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the case at best the – applicant established financial or commercial interests in the advertising business offered by the first respondent from time to time Review application dismissed with – costs. The second applicant (Eshisha Media Networks CC) brought an Summary: application to review and set aside the decisions taken by the first respondent (The Municipal Council for the City of Windhoek) to approve the upgrading of prime lights to LED billboards The question arose whether the second applicant has locus – standi to bring such an application The Court found that the second applicant does – not have locus standi and dismissed the application with costs because the applicant failed to persuade the Court that it has direct or substantial interest in the outcome of the case. ORDER (i) The second applicant lacks to bring this review application. locus standi (ii) The fourth respondent must comply with the notice given to it by the first respondent to remove the billboard with its foundation if not done yet. (iii) The review application by the second applicant is dismissed and ordered to pay costs in favour of the first respondent. JUDGMENT UNENGU AJ:
Heard: 22 April 2015; 08 December 2015; Delivered: 29 February 2016 Flynote: Practice – Review application – Locus standi – Party must have real and substantial interest in the outcome of the case – Applicant failing to persuade the Court of direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the case – at best the applicant established financial or commercial interests in the advertising business offered by the first respondent from time to time – Review application dismissed with costs. Summary: The second applicant (Eshisha Media Networks CC) brought an application to review and set aside the decisions taken by the first respondent (The Municipal Council for the City of Windhoek) to approve the upgrading of prime lights to LED billboards – The question arose whether the second applicant has locus standi to bring such an application – The Court found that the second applicant does not have locus standi and dismissed the application with costs because the applicant failed to persuade the Court that it has direct or substantial interest in the outcome of the case. ORDER (i) The second applicant lacks locus standi to bring this review application. (ii) The fourth respondent must comply with the notice given to it by the first respondent to remove the billboard with its foundation if not done yet. (iii) The review application by the second applicant is dismissed and ordered to pay costs in favour of the first respondent. JUDGMENT UNENGU AJ:
Continental%20Outdoor%20Media%20%20v%20The%20Municipal%20Council%20Windhoek%20[A%20421-2013)%20[2016]%20NAHCMD%2044%20(29%20February%202016).docx