AN attempt by lawyers representing the government and president Hage Geingob to strike an early blow against the Affirmative Repositioning (AR) movement in a case about an alleged undertaking to have 200 000 plots of land serviced countrywide has failed in the Windhoek High Court.
In an order given yesterday, judge Orben Sibeya dismissed an exception that the government and president filed against a claim which AR launched against them in the High Court in September last year.
The judge also ordered the government and president to pay the AR movement’s legal costs for opposing the exception raised against its claim.
The AR movement, represented by lawyer Kadhila Amoomo, on 15 September last year filed a High Court case in which it is asking the court to direct the government to provide 200 000 plots of land with municipal services within a period of two years.
In response to AR’s claim, lawyers representing the government and the president, who is cited as the second defendant in the matter, filed an exception in which they argued that the claim was flawed from the outset.
In its claim, AR says the movement, represented by Job Amupanda, and the government, represented by Geingob, on 24 July 2015 reached an agreement that 200 000 plots would be serviced countrywide and that at the same time AR would not continue with “its radical programme of action to occupy vacant land in urban areas”.
According to AR, it complied with its side of the agreement by not continuing with its campaign to occupy vacant land in urban areas, but over the more than five years that have passed, the government has failed to service 200 000 plots of land, and has instead managed to provide municipal services to fewer than 15 000 plots.
In their exception, the government and president, represented by deputy government attorney Neli Tjahikika and legal counsel Dennis Khama, argued that the agreement on which AR relies is against public policy and the constitutional principle of the rule of law, as AR does not have any right to occupy land not belonging to it.
Because AR’s occupation of land would have been unlawful under Namibian law, the agreement on which the movement relies could not lead to a reciprocal contractual obligation on the part of the government, it was also argued in the exception.
It was further argued that the agreement cannot be enforced by a court, as the undertaking claimed to have been made by the government was an expression of policy, which cannot be enforced like the terms of a contract.
With the exception dismissed, the defendants would now have to decide if they will file a plea with the court to respond to AR’s claim.
Sibeya postponed the matter to 16 March for a case planning hearing.
