my legal practitioners of record and counsel for their perusal. I point out that the documents I provided were voluminous and required more time for perusal. I am advised by my legal practitioners of record that, after furnishing my instructions to lodge this application on an urgent basis, my instructed counsels (sic) had to peruse the documents, conduct research on several complex matters of law that relates to this matter. All this required time and resources to draft and settle all the necessary papers.’ [40] It is that the applicant needed more than a week to consult and have his instructions to launch the application carried out. By his own admission, as recorded above, the matter was complex. That notwithstanding, he found it fit to afford the respondent not more than a day to file answering papers. In this regard, the time limits afforded the respondent were in my view oppressive, regard had to the nature, complexity and history of the matter. In this regard, the applicant afforded himself ample time but was not willing to consider affording his opponent a comparable period of preparation time. It must be said in this regard that what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. The applicant cannot lavish himself a lot of time to bring his complex application and then push very stringent time lines down the respondent’s throat as it were. The time lines adopted must be reasonable, fair and just and should take account of the true nature of the matter, not from the jaundiced perspective of the applicant and his parochial interests. The court must not be left with the disquieting feeling that the applicant is litigating oppressively by affording himself a lot of time but giving the respondent very little time to properly and fully canvass his or her case. That is unfortunately the distinct impression I gather in this matter. [41] I find it unnecessary, in view of the conclusion to which I have arrived, to decide upon the lasst point in limine namely, that the relief sought by the applicant herein is vague. [42] In the premises, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant did not comply with this requirement as well. The respondent actually had to come to court and request the matter to be postponed and stated that the CEO, who is au fait with the matter was not available. From the papers that were eventually filed, considered in tandem with the
my legal practitioners of record and counsel for their perusal. I point out that the documents I provided were voluminous and required more time for perusal. I am advised by my legal practitioners of record that, after furnishing my instructions to lodge this application on an urgent basis, my instructed counsels (sic) had to peruse the documents, conduct research on several complex matters of law that relates to this matter. All this required time and resources to draft and settle all the necessary papers.’ [40] It is that the applicant needed more than a week to consult and have his instructions to launch the application carried out. By his own admission, as recorded above, the matter was complex. That notwithstanding, he found it fit to afford the respondent not more than a day to file answering papers. In this regard, the time limits afforded the respondent were in my view oppressive, regard had to the nature, complexity and history of the matter. In this regard, the applicant afforded himself ample time but was not willing to consider affording his opponent a comparable period of preparation time. It must be said in this regard that what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. The applicant cannot lavish himself a lot of time to bring his complex application and then push very stringent time lines down the respondent’s throat as it were. The time lines adopted must be reasonable, fair and just and should take account of the true nature of the matter, not from the jaundiced perspective of the applicant and his parochial interests. The court must not be left with the disquieting feeling that the applicant is litigating oppressively by affording himself a lot of time but giving the respondent very little time to properly and fully canvass his or her case. That is unfortunately the distinct impression I gather in this matter. [41] I find it unnecessary, in view of the conclusion to which I have arrived, to decide upon the lasst point in limine namely, that the relief sought by the applicant herein is vague. [42] In the premises, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant did not comply with this requirement as well. The respondent actually had to come to court and request the matter to be postponed and stated that the CEO, who is au fait with the matter was not available. From the papers that were eventually filed, considered in tandem with the
Dr%20Tjipangandjara%20v%20Namibia%20Water%20Corporation%20(Pty)%20Ltd%20(LC%2060-2015)%20%5B2015%5D%20NALCMD%2011%20(15%20May%202015).docx