C S v C S (179 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 236 (3 August 2018)

C S v C S (179 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 236 (3 August 2018)

A clinical psychologist not registered in Namibia under the Social Work and Psychology Act, 6 of 2004, cannot lawfully provide expert evidence in Namibian courts, as such testimony and report drafting constitute 'practice' under the Act. The court, being a creature of statute, cannot accept such evidence, regardless of party agreement or prior practice.

Citation
[2018] NAHCMD 236
Parties
Plaintiff: C S; Defendant: CS
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
3 August 2018
Case Number
179 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Interlocutory Application in Matrimonial Action / Ruling on Objection to Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; objection to expert evidence sustained.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Registration of Professionals, Interpretation of Statutes, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Professional Regulation Expert Evidence Registration of Professionals Interpretation of Statutes Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C S

Plaintiff

CS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Interlocutory Application in Matrimonial Action / Ruling on Objection to Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a South African clinical psychologist not registered in Namibia can give expert evidence in Namibian courts
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'practice' under the Social Work and Psychology Act, 6 of 2004
  3. 3 Whether the Social Work and Psychology Council of Namibia should have been joined as a party

Ratio Decidendi

A clinical psychologist not registered in Namibia under the Social Work and Psychology Act, 6 of 2004, cannot lawfully provide expert evidence in Namibian courts, as such testimony and report drafting constitute 'practice' under the Act. The court, being a creature of statute, cannot accept such evidence, regardless of party agreement or prior practice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; objection to expert evidence sustained.

Orders

  • Applicant’s non-compliance with the rules is condoned, and the matter is heard on an urgent basis.
  • Objection of the defendant against the expert evidence of Mr. Dowdall is sustained.