CIVIL PRACTICE – APPEALABILITY OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

CIVIL PRACTICE – APPEALABILITY OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

In this matter, applicants sought leave to appeal against two court orders; firstly, an order of 23 November 2021 giving leave to the applicant in the main action to file its answering affidavit, is dismissed with costs of disbursements, and secondly, an order against the dismissal of an application for recusal.

RAKOW J discussed the appealability of interlocutory orders in light of Supreme Court judgments (Di Savino v Nedbank Namibia Limited (SA 82/2014) [2017] NASC 32 (07 August 2017, Shetu Trading CC v Chair, Tender Board of Namibia and Others 2012 (1) NR 162 (SC))), Section 18 (3) of the High Court Act, 1990 and dismissed both applications for leave to appeal with costs of disbursement, and held that:

1. The applicants must show that the order appealed against is appealable.
2. In determining the appealability, one needs to see whether the order appealed against meets the three attributes as described in the Government of the Republic of Namibia v Fillipus, vis

(i)the decision must be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the Court of first instance;

(ii) it must be definitive of the rights of the parties, i.e., it must grant definite and distinct relief; and

(iii) it must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings;

1. In terms of the first appeal, the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction if what an applicant seeks is for it to merely pronounce upon the correctness of the reasoning of the High Court and not upon a decision granting definite and distinct relief.
2. Applicant in the current matter failed to make out a case that the court misdirected itself on the legal principles applicable in recusal applications and as such, the application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the recusal application should not succeed.

Reconnaissance Energy Namibia (PTY) LTD v Sinonge & Others NAHCMD 19 July 2022