Noble v Government of Namibia and Others (311 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 331 (7 December 2012)

# Noble v Government of Namibia and Others (311 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 331 (7 December 2012) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from NamibLII: Noble v Government of Namibia and Others …&body=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07) [ Download RTF (661.1 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (661.1 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07/source) * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Noble v Government of Namibia and Others (311 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 331 (7 December 2012) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Noble v Government of Namibia and Others (311 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 331 (7 December 2012) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2012] NAHC 331 Copy Court [High Court](/judgments/NAHC/) Case number 311 of 2012 Judges [Parker AJ](/judgments/all/?judges=Parker%20AJ) Judgment date 7 December 2012 Language English Other documents [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/331/eng@2012-12-07/attachment/noble-v-government-of-namibia-and-others-2012-nahc-331-7-december-2012.pdf) (49.0 KB) * * * Skip to document content **R NOT REPORTABLE EPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA** **HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK** **EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT** Case no: A 311/2012 In the matter between: #### **TERRENCE NOBLE APPLICANT** and **THE GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA FIRST RESPONDENT** **MAGISTRATE MATULICH SECOND RESPONDENT** **JAN OLIVIER & CO. THIRD RESPONDENT** **STANDARD BANK NAMIBIA LIMITED FOURTH RESPONDENT** **NAMIBIAN POLICE STATION COMMANDER** **(WALVIS BAY) FIFTH RESPONDENT** **MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY SIXTH RESPONDENT** **DEPUTY-SHERIFF (WALVIS BAY) SEVENTH RESPONDENT** **REGISTRAR OF DEEDS EIGHTH RESPONDENT** **Neutral citation:**_Noble v The Government of Namibia_(A 311/2012) [[2012] NAHCMD 104](/akn/na/judgment/nahcmd/2012/104) (7 December 2012) **Coram:** PARKER AJ **Heard** : **7 December 2012** **Delivered** : **7 December 2012** **Flynote:** Practice – Applications and motions – Urgent applications – Applicant must satisfy the requirements of rule 6(12)(1)(b) of the rules of court for the matter to be heard on urgent basis – Furthermore, no urgency where urgency is self-created. **Summary:** Practice – Applications and motions – Urgent applications – Applicant must satisfy the two requirements of rule 6(12)(12)(b) of the rules of court for the application to be heard as one of urgency – Court finding that applicant has failed to satisfy those requirements – Besides court holding that the urgency is self-created by the culpable remissness of applicant – Consequently, Court dismissing application with costs. **ORDER** The application is struck from the roll with costs; which costs include costs of one instructing counsel and one instructed counsel **JUDGMENT** PARKER AJ: [1] In this matter the applicant comes to the court by what the applicant characterizes as urgent application, that is, the matter should be heard on urgent basis. The applicant appears in person; Ms Van der Westhuizen appears for the fourth respondent. There are no appearances for the rest of the respondents. They should therefore abide by the decision of the court. [2] Urgent applications are governed by rule 6(12) of the rules of court; and rule 6(12)(b) provides that in every affidavit or petition filed in support of any application under para (a) of subrule (12) the applicant must set forth explicitly the circumstances which he or she avers render the matter urgent and the reasons why he or she claims that he or she could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The rule entails two requirements: first, the circumstances relating to urgency which must be explicitly set out, and second, the reasons why an applicant could not be afforded substantial redress in due course. [3] I have read the papers filed of record, including the applicant’s heads of argument. I have considered the papers and oral submissions by the applicant and counsel. On the papers I find that the applicant has not satisfied the two requirements. He has not set out explicitly in his affidavit the circumstances which render the matter urgent. He has also not given reasons why he could be afforded substantial redress in due course. See _Salt and Another v Smith_ 1990 NR 87 at 88A-C. [4] More important, from the papers I find, as counsel submitted, that the applicant knew as far back February 2012 that he faced ejectment from the property. He has waited for about nine months to rush to court and to pray the court to hear the matter on urgent basis. [5] I am of the view that urgency in this application is self-created by the culpable remissness on the part of the applicant. Hence, I decline to condone his non-compliance with the rules of court or to hear this application as one of urgency. (See _Bergmann v Communal Bank of Namibia Ltd and Another_ 2001 NR 45). [6] Whereupon the application is struck from the roll with costs; which costs include costs of one instructing counsel and one instructed counsel. \---------------------------- C Parker Acting Judge APPEARANCES APPLICANT: In Person FOURTH RESPONDENT: C Van der Westhuizen Instructed by Etzold-Duvenhage, Windhoek #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >