Kahimise fails to prove urgency
Suspended City of Windhoek CEO Robert Kahimise's bid to have his suspension overturned by the Windhoek High Court on an urgent basis has failed.
Kahimise now has to wait his turn before a labour commissioner to argue against his dismissal at a date not yet set, but likely to be in late December or mid-January. High Court Judge Collins Parker yesterday ruled that Kahimise's argument that his suspension was unprocedural and was causing financial hardship and reputational damage did not meet the requirements for an urgent application.
Parker informed Kahimise to wait for the labour commissioner to hear his dispute. Parker agreed with arguments made by advocate Philip Barnard, acting on behalf of the City, that no substantial arguments in favour of urgency were provided. Barnard described Kahimise's application for an urgent court date as “nothing but an attack to avoid a disciplinary hearing” and “a fight for the sake of a fight”.
He pointed out that in Kahimise's founding affidavit, the CEO listed two properties, two overdrafts and four vehicles, in addition to other expenses, and said Kahimise is a “man of means” who would not be declared insolvent in the space of two months.
Barnard said Kahimise could sell one of his cars, or some livestock, to tide him over until his labour dispute hearing. Nevertheless, Barnard said financial hardship does not constitute grounds for urgency.
“In this case, a slight reduction in an opulent lifestyle can hardly be called an exceptional circumstance and grounds for urgency,” he said.
He further argued that after Kahimise was suspended without pay he was still receiving his allowances, but the City had backtracked meanwhile and agreed to pay his full salary during his suspension.
In a 14 September letter to Kahimise, the city council said considering his “alleged financial position” Kahimise would be paid for the duration of his suspension.
The advocate said the allegations against Kahimise warranted an investigation and were not “a trifling matter”, as he held an important public post funded by ratepayers.
He also argued that Kahimise's argument that the suspension was causing irreversible harm to his reputation was not grounds for urgency, as every suspension and dismissal would then need to be heard on an urgent basis.
Kahimise's lawyer, Patrick Kauta, argued that the 5 November meeting which decided to suspend him was unlawful, rendering the decision null and void. According to him, that was sufficient grounds to have the matter heard on an urgent basis.
Further, he argued that Kahimise had not been given sufficient time to defend himself and was never given reasons for his suspension.
Kauta said his client would suffer reputational and financial damages if an urgent interdict to lift his suspension was not granted and that his fundamental rights were infringed.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Kahimise now has to wait his turn before a labour commissioner to argue against his dismissal at a date not yet set, but likely to be in late December or mid-January. High Court Judge Collins Parker yesterday ruled that Kahimise's argument that his suspension was unprocedural and was causing financial hardship and reputational damage did not meet the requirements for an urgent application.
Parker informed Kahimise to wait for the labour commissioner to hear his dispute. Parker agreed with arguments made by advocate Philip Barnard, acting on behalf of the City, that no substantial arguments in favour of urgency were provided. Barnard described Kahimise's application for an urgent court date as “nothing but an attack to avoid a disciplinary hearing” and “a fight for the sake of a fight”.
He pointed out that in Kahimise's founding affidavit, the CEO listed two properties, two overdrafts and four vehicles, in addition to other expenses, and said Kahimise is a “man of means” who would not be declared insolvent in the space of two months.
Barnard said Kahimise could sell one of his cars, or some livestock, to tide him over until his labour dispute hearing. Nevertheless, Barnard said financial hardship does not constitute grounds for urgency.
“In this case, a slight reduction in an opulent lifestyle can hardly be called an exceptional circumstance and grounds for urgency,” he said.
He further argued that after Kahimise was suspended without pay he was still receiving his allowances, but the City had backtracked meanwhile and agreed to pay his full salary during his suspension.
In a 14 September letter to Kahimise, the city council said considering his “alleged financial position” Kahimise would be paid for the duration of his suspension.
The advocate said the allegations against Kahimise warranted an investigation and were not “a trifling matter”, as he held an important public post funded by ratepayers.
He also argued that Kahimise's argument that the suspension was causing irreversible harm to his reputation was not grounds for urgency, as every suspension and dismissal would then need to be heard on an urgent basis.
Kahimise's lawyer, Patrick Kauta, argued that the 5 November meeting which decided to suspend him was unlawful, rendering the decision null and void. According to him, that was sufficient grounds to have the matter heard on an urgent basis.
Further, he argued that Kahimise had not been given sufficient time to defend himself and was never given reasons for his suspension.
Kauta said his client would suffer reputational and financial damages if an urgent interdict to lift his suspension was not granted and that his fundamental rights were infringed.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article