Red line: Court grants Amupanda relief to prove poor finances
In ongoing legal action regarding the removal of the veterinary cordon fence (VCF), Affirmative Repositioning activist Job Amupanda has been granted leave to provide proof of his financial resources for a protective costs order.
Judge Shafimana Ueitele yesterday ordered that Amupanda be granted leave to approach the court on the aspect of his financial resources and the amount of costs that are likely to be involved in this matter, and file his amplified papers by no later than 12 September.
Amupanda filed a case on 26 May 2021, seeking a court order to have the VCF removed and declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He listed agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, the government, Attorney-General Festus Mbandeka and an official in the directorate of veterinary services, Hango Nambinga, as defendants in the matter.
The Meat Board of Namibia has since been added as a fifth defendant after it asked for leave to intervene, while two commercial farmers have joined as third parties against the case. The Namibia Agricultural Union has also joined as a defendant.
Ueitele said the defendants may, if so advised, reply to Amupanda’s amplified papers by no later than 23 September.
Public importance
In March 2022, Amupanda amended his existing particulars of claim in the controversial court case.
This after the defendants moved to strike some allegations he made in his claim.
On 29 August last year, Amupanda - in response to the Meat Board's indication that it would seek an order for wasted costs in addition to opposing an application for wasted costs - filed an application for a protective costs order, which was heard on 29 June.
“Amupanda contends that the issues in the main action are of public importance, underpinned by social justice and not for personal or political gain, that a protective costs order will ensure that the parties litigate on equal footing, and that he anticipates that the costs of this action will run into millions,” Ueitele said.
“Due to his limited financial resources, he will not be able to pay the defendants' legal costs if his action is dismissed with costs.”
According to the judge, the defendants opposed the application and argued that Amupanda did not make out a case for a protective costs order.
“The court finds that Amupanda has satisfied the first two requirements for a protective costs order, but in respect of the third requirement, he has not fully disclosed his financial position.”
Fair and just
An applicant for a protective costs order must prove that the issues raised in the matter are of general public importance, and that it is a first-impression case.
“Secondly, that public interest requires that those issues be resolved, and thirdly, regarding the financial resources of the applicant and respondents, [the applicant must prove that] the amount of costs that are likely to be involved [indicate that it is] fair and just to make a protective costs order, as long as the conduct of the applicant in the case is not frivolous.”
Ueitele said based on the financial situation presented by Amupanda, the court is not in the position to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is just and fair for the court to grant the order in his favour.
“The court, therefore, grants Amupanda leave to supplement his papers in order to enable the court to properly asses his financial resources and the amount of costs that are likely to be involved in this matter.”
The case has been postponed to 26 September.
Judge Shafimana Ueitele yesterday ordered that Amupanda be granted leave to approach the court on the aspect of his financial resources and the amount of costs that are likely to be involved in this matter, and file his amplified papers by no later than 12 September.
Amupanda filed a case on 26 May 2021, seeking a court order to have the VCF removed and declared illegal and unconstitutional.
He listed agriculture minister Calle Schlettwein, the government, Attorney-General Festus Mbandeka and an official in the directorate of veterinary services, Hango Nambinga, as defendants in the matter.
The Meat Board of Namibia has since been added as a fifth defendant after it asked for leave to intervene, while two commercial farmers have joined as third parties against the case. The Namibia Agricultural Union has also joined as a defendant.
Ueitele said the defendants may, if so advised, reply to Amupanda’s amplified papers by no later than 23 September.
Public importance
In March 2022, Amupanda amended his existing particulars of claim in the controversial court case.
This after the defendants moved to strike some allegations he made in his claim.
On 29 August last year, Amupanda - in response to the Meat Board's indication that it would seek an order for wasted costs in addition to opposing an application for wasted costs - filed an application for a protective costs order, which was heard on 29 June.
“Amupanda contends that the issues in the main action are of public importance, underpinned by social justice and not for personal or political gain, that a protective costs order will ensure that the parties litigate on equal footing, and that he anticipates that the costs of this action will run into millions,” Ueitele said.
“Due to his limited financial resources, he will not be able to pay the defendants' legal costs if his action is dismissed with costs.”
According to the judge, the defendants opposed the application and argued that Amupanda did not make out a case for a protective costs order.
“The court finds that Amupanda has satisfied the first two requirements for a protective costs order, but in respect of the third requirement, he has not fully disclosed his financial position.”
Fair and just
An applicant for a protective costs order must prove that the issues raised in the matter are of general public importance, and that it is a first-impression case.
“Secondly, that public interest requires that those issues be resolved, and thirdly, regarding the financial resources of the applicant and respondents, [the applicant must prove that] the amount of costs that are likely to be involved [indicate that it is] fair and just to make a protective costs order, as long as the conduct of the applicant in the case is not frivolous.”
Ueitele said based on the financial situation presented by Amupanda, the court is not in the position to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is just and fair for the court to grant the order in his favour.
“The court, therefore, grants Amupanda leave to supplement his papers in order to enable the court to properly asses his financial resources and the amount of costs that are likely to be involved in this matter.”
The case has been postponed to 26 September.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article