Nghixulifwa vs Executive branch court battle rages on

• By Tracy Tafirenyika

A court battle involving the country’s Executive branch, President Hage Geingob and six others in which former Roads Constructor (RCC) boss, Ignatius Shidumifa Kelly Nghixulifwa and his wife, Meriam Helena Nghixulifwa in their race against time to save their farm from being repossessed by the Agribank is set to be heard for hearing next year.

This comes after an act in the High Court which allows the Judge President to make rules subject to approval by President Geingob was challenged by the applicants declaring that, President Geingob should not proclaim rules of the High Court.

generic stromectol online over the counter

Nghixulifwa listed Geingob as the first respondent together with the Attorney General as the second respondent who are3 being represented by state legal practitioner, Jabulani Ncube.

He also listed Agribank as the third respondent, Registrar of the High Court as the fourth respondent, Registrar of Deeds as the fifth respondent, Deputy Sheriff of Tsumeb as the sixth respondent and Law Society of Namibia as the seventh respondent.

According to the applicants, President Hage Geingob was allowed to make a decision to approve the repossession of his farm on behalf of Judge President as per section 39 (1) (B).

However, in their founding affidavit filed in the High Court of Namibia the applicants declares that, the president should not proclaim rules of the high court.

generic fluoxetine online over the counter

“We were advised that the fact that it is the President who ultimately decides whether or not particular rule or rules must come into force is directly in conflict and inconsistent with Article 78(3) and (4).

generic glucophage online over the counter

Such a requirement is also incompatible with the general common law principle that the judiciary is independent in its work and when it comes to dealing with its own procedures and rules.

generic vibramycin online over the counter

Furthermore legal submissions in this respect shall be made at the hearing,” the court documents stated.

“To have the Head of the Executive deciding whether or not rules should be approved, in other words giving him discretion to refuse to approve certain rules even when the judiciary thinks such rules are unnecessary and appropriate is a serious constitutional defect.