Pienaar v Prosecutor General (310 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 326 (4 December 2012)

# Pienaar v Prosecutor General (310 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 326 (4 December 2012) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from NamibLII: Pienaar v Prosecutor General \(310 of 2012\) …&body=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04) [ Download RTF (662.5 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (662.5 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04/source) * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Pienaar v Prosecutor General (310 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 326 (4 December 2012) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Pienaar v Prosecutor General (310 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 326 (4 December 2012) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2012] NAHC 326 Copy Court [High Court](/judgments/NAHC/) Case number 310 of 2012 Judges [Parker AJ](/judgments/all/?judges=Parker%20AJ) Judgment date 4 December 2012 Language English Other documents [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/326/eng@2012-12-04/attachment/pienaar-v-prosecutor-general-2012-nahc-326-4-december-2012.pdf) (49.7 KB) * * * Skip to document content **R NOT REPORTABLE EPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA** **HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK** **EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT** Case no: A 310/2012 In the matter between: #### **ADRIAAN JACOBUS PIENAAR APPLICANT** and **THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL RESPONDENT** **Neutral citation:**_Pienaar v The Prosecutor General_(A 310/2012) [[2012] NAHCMD 97](/akn/na/judgment/nahcmd/2012/97) (4 December 2012) **Coram:** PARKER AJ **Heard** : **4 December 2012** **Delivered** : **4 December 2012** **Flynote:** Practice – Applications and motions – Urgent application – Requirements for – Requirements are as set out in rule 6(12)(b) of the rules of court. **Summary:** Practice – Applications and motions – Urgent application – Requirements for – Requirements are as set out in rule 6(12)(b) of the rules of court – Interpretation and application of the rule in _Salt and Another v Smith_ 1990 NR 87 (HC) followed – Court finding that the applicant has not satisfied the two intertwined requirements of (a) setting out explicitly the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and (b) giving reasons why the applicant says he could not be afforded substantial redress in due course. **ORDER** The application is dismissed with costs. **JUDGMENT** PARKER AJ: [1] This matter comes to the court by what the applicant characterizes as urgent application. The applicant appears in person; and Mr Small appears for the respondent. The applicant seeks to move the court to order the Prosecutor-General to consolidate all the criminal cases he is facing in various districts of the country and centralize their trial in one court. He says he has written a letter to the Prosecutor-General to that effect but no decision has been made by her; hence the present application. [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] From the papers it would seem the applicant’s application is based on the following; first, that the Prosecutor-General has not taken a decision on his request to centralize all the cases against him, second, that in his view he is not guilty of any of the charges preferred against him, third, that the cases cannot be tried as criminal cases but as civil matters, and fourth, that he has been held in custody for a long period. On the papers I find that the applicant has not satisfied the two requirements. Those contentions are not circumstances explicitly set out which render the matter urgent. He has also not given sufficient reason why he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. See _Salt and Another v Smith_ 1990 NR 87 at 88A-C. On these grounds alone, the application falls to be struck for lack of urgency. But, for completeness, I proceed to deal with the merits of the case. [4] It is the applicant’s contention that in terms of Article 12(1) of the Namibian Constitution the court should make an order which commands the Prosecutor-General to consolidate all the criminal cases against him and centralize the trial of all the cases. The applicant does not tell the court the legal basis of his alleged entitlement to the grant of the order, and it is my firm view that he has no such entitlement. He does not complain that he has not had a fair trial. That being the case, the court is not entitled to make such order directed to the Prosecutor-General. [5] Accordingly, on these two grounds, ie the issue of urgency and the merits, the application fails to be dismissed. I, therefore, accept Mr Small’s submission that the application should be dismissed with costs; that is, costs should follow the event. I have no good reason to depart from this settled rule of practice. Whereupon, I make the following order: The application is dismissed with costs. \---------------------------- C Parker Acting Judge APPEARANCES APPLICANT: In Person RESPONDENT: D Small Of Office of the Prosecutor General, Windhoek #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >