Nakanyala v Old Mutual Namibia Limited (LC 4 of 2007) [2006] NALC 4 (30 November 2006)

Nakanyala v Old Mutual Namibia Limited (LC 4 of 2007) [2006] NALC 4 (30 November 2006)

The deponent to the founding affidavit lacked authority to bring the application or to depose to the founding affidavit on behalf of the applicant or the union. The application was unauthorized and thus must be dismissed. The application to strike out scandalous, vexatious, irrelevant, new evidence, and hearsay passages succeeds. The deponent acted vexatiously, warranting a cost order against him.

Citation
[2006] NALC 4
Parties
Applicant: Festus Nakanyala; Respondent: Old Mutual Namibia Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Case Number
LC 4 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Affidavit Requirements, Striking Out Scandalous Matter, Costs for Unauthorized Proceedings
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Affidavit Requirements Striking Out Scandalous Matter Costs for Unauthorized Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Festus Nakanyala

Applicant

Old Mutual Namibia Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Application to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deponent to the founding affidavit had authority to bring the application on behalf of the applicant
  2. 2 Whether certain passages and paragraphs in affidavits should be struck out as scandalous, vexatious, irrelevant, new evidence, or hearsay
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the unauthorized deponent

Ratio Decidendi

The deponent to the founding affidavit lacked authority to bring the application or to depose to the founding affidavit on behalf of the applicant or the union. The application was unauthorized and thus must be dismissed. The application to strike out scandalous, vexatious, irrelevant, new evidence, and hearsay passages succeeds. The deponent acted vexatiously, warranting a cost order against him.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to strike out succeeds with costs.
  • The main application is dismissed with costs.