Atlantic Ocean Management (Pty) Ltd v Prosecutor General (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 172 of 2017) [2022] NAHCMD 627 (7 November 2022)

Atlantic Ocean Management (Pty) Ltd v Prosecutor General (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 172 of 2017) [2022] NAHCMD 627 (7 November 2022)

The application is dismissed because the dispute is more appropriately adjudicated in the subsequent action, the application is stale due to delay, and the funds may already have been forfeited to the State, rendering any order ineffectual.

Citation
[2022] NAHCMD 627
Parties
Applicant: Atlantic Ocean Management (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Fish Spain S. L.; Respondent: The Prosecutor General; Respondent: Bank Windhoek Ltd; Respondent: Bank Windhoek Ltd (Walvis Bay); Respondent: Bank of Namibia
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
7 November 2022
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 172 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Motion Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Exchange Control, Forfeiture of Funds, Judicial Review, Delay in Litigation
Source Language
English
Banking Law Administrative Law Exchange Control Forfeiture of Funds Judicial Review Delay in Litigation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atlantic Ocean Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Fish Spain S. L.

Applicant

The Prosecutor General

Respondent

Bank Windhoek Ltd

Respondent

Bank Windhoek Ltd (Walvis Bay)

Respondent

Bank of Namibia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank of Namibia lawfully refused permission to release funds in the applicant's account
  2. 2 Whether the application should be dismissed due to delay and the existence of a subsequent action
  3. 3 Whether the publication of General Notice 222 (GN 222) and forfeiture of funds to the State affects the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the dispute is more appropriately adjudicated in the subsequent action, the application is stale due to delay, and the funds may already have been forfeited to the State, rendering any order ineffectual.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to include one instructing and two instructed counsel.
  • The matter is removed from the roll and regarded as finalized.