Dausab v NCS [2020] NAHCMD 435 (23 September 2020)

Dausab v NCS [2020] NAHCMD 435 (23 September 2020)

The application was struck from the roll because the founding affidavit was not in substantial compliance with Regulations 1 to 4 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963, and the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation or evidence of substantial compliance, leaving the court with no discretion to condone the non-compliance.

Citation
[2020] NAHCMD 435
Parties
Applicant: Andre Friedel Castro Dausab; Respondent: Namibia Correctional Service
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Motion (urgent Application) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (points in Limine)
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for non-compliance with Regulations 1 to 4 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963.
Legal Topics
Affidavit Validity, Commissioner of Oaths Requirements, Non Compliance With Regulations, Substantial Compliance, Court Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Affidavit Validity Commissioner of Oaths Requirements Non Compliance With Regulations Substantial Compliance Court Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Friedel Castro Dausab

Applicant

Namibia Correctional Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion (urgent Application) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (points in Limine)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with Regulations 1 to 4 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963 renders the founding affidavit and application fatally defective
  2. 2 Whether the court can condone such non-compliance in the absence of a reasonable explanation

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck from the roll because the founding affidavit was not in substantial compliance with Regulations 1 to 4 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963, and the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation or evidence of substantial compliance, leaving the court with no discretion to condone the non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for non-compliance with Regulations 1 to 4 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for non-compliance with Regulation 1 to 4 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963.
  • There is no order as to costs.