By Roland Routh
WINDHOEK – Prominent Windhoek lawyer Kaitjata Kangueehi was ordered by three Judges of the Supreme Court to pay the legal expenses of his client.
Deputy Chief Justice Petrus Damaseb with Judge of Appeal Gerhard Maritz and Acting Judge of Appeal Elton Hoff concurring made the order after dismissing an application for the postponement of an application for condonation and reinstatement of appeal.
According to Deputy Chief Justice Damaseb, Kangueehi’s conduct of the appellant appeal fell short of his duties as a legal practitioner who was instructed to prosecute an appeal in the Supreme Court.
He noted the explanation given by Kangueehi was weak and unpersuasive.
The case is a result of an appeal lodged by Richard Katjaimo after he failed to have five relatives evicted from a farm of which he claimed to be the lawful owner.
The judge in that matter, Acting Judge Petrus Unengu found the respondents had acquired usufruct and that the appellant had no right to evict them.
He appealed the decision in the Supreme Court.
However, the Deputy Chief Justice remarked “it is the manner in which his instructing practitioner went about prosecuting the appeal that has created difficulties for him.”
According to the Deputy Chief Justice the appeal was lodged out of time and the appellant failed to “promptly and without delay” seek condonation for his non-compliance and for the appeal’s re-instatement, which they however did on September 03, 2013 which was due for hearing on November 03, 2014.
He said the appellant then filed an application for the postponement of the appeal because of an incomplete record which was opposed by the respondents represented by Dirk Conradie.
When the case appeared on November 03, the instructed practitioner, Adolf Denk, conceded that there was no pending appeal before the court, but rather an application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal.
The judge said that all this drama could only result in a postponement application for the application for condonation and reinstatement, but was compounded by yet another concession of Denk that he was not ready to argue as parts of the record were still missing.
This was a direct result of the negligence of the appellant’s instructing counsel the judge said.