REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

In the matter between: Case no: I 2912/2013

WALTER HOESEB PLAINTIFF

and

THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT 1ST DEFENDANTTHE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THEWALVIS BAY PRISON 2ND DEFENDANTTHE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL OF CORRECTIONALSERVICES 3RD DEFENDANT THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 4TH DEFENDANTTHE MINISTER OF JUSTICE 5TH DEFENDANT

Neutral citation: Hoeseb v The Registrar of the High Court (I 2912/2013) [2014]

NAHCMD 387 (15 October 2014)

Coram: GEIER J

Heard: 14 October 2014Delivered: 15 October 2014Released: 26 January 2015

2

Flynote: Delict - Damages - Aquilian claim for general damages for unlawful

imprisonment — Failure in administration of justice resulting in 14 months and 5

days' unlawful imprisonment of plaintiff - Calculation of plaintiff’s damages by using

'daily rate' found inappropriate - Plaintiff awarded N$450 000 in general damages.

Summary: The Plaintiff had been sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on 02

December 2009 by the Magistrate for the district of Outjo. The matter was also sent

on statutory review to the High Court of Namibia on 22 January 2010. On 24

September 2010 the High Court set the 3 year term of imprisonment aside on review

and replaced it with a fine of N$2000 or 12 (twelve) month’s imprisonment. This

sentence was antedated to the 2nd of December 2009. The effect of the High Court

Judgment of 24 September 2010 was that plaintiff was entitled to immediate release

from prison on 24 September 2010.The first defendant was obliged to process the

review properly and in particular had to communicate the High Court of Namibia

judgment of 24 September 2010 to the prison authorities in Walvis Bay. The first

defendant breached this duty by failing to communicate the said judgment to the

Walvis Bay prison. The second defendant failed to make enquiries regarding the

outcome of the review. As a consequence of the said breaches by the first and

second defendants of their respective obligations and legal duties towards the

plaintiff to ensure he would not be detained longer than permitted by law the plaintiff

was unlawfully imprisoned in the Walvis Bay prison from 25 September 2010 until his

eventual release 1 December 2011 – a total of 14 months and 5 days – and so

deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 7 of the Namibian Constitution.’

As the parties were agreed that the only issue between them which required

determination was the issue of quantum, the court then, after hearing evidence and

argument awarded general damages in the amount of N$450 000.00 with costs to

the plaintiff.

ORDER

1. General damages are hereby awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of

N$450 000.00.

3

2. The plaintiff’s claim for loss of income is dismissed.

3. Costs follow the result, such costs to include the costs of one instructed- and

one instructing counsel.

JUDGMENT

GEIER J:

[1] The background to the administrative blunder which resulted in the plaintiff’s

unlawful detention for a period of 14 months and 5 days was pleaded as follows:

‘7. Plaintiff was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on 02 December 2009 by the

Magistrate for the district of Outjo. He filed a notice of appeal to the High Court on or about

24 March 2010.

8. Plaintiff’s matter was also sent on statutory review to the High Court of Namibia on

22 January 2010 (the review).

9. On 24 September 2010 the High Court set the 3 year imprisonment aside on review

and replaced it with a fine of N$2000 or 12 (twelve) month’s imprisonment plus a further 2

(two) years on condition that plaintiff is not found guilty of Extortion, Obstructing the Course

of Justice and Fraud, committed during the period of suspension. This sentence was

antedated to the 2nd of December 2009.

10. The effect of the High Court Judgment of 24 September 2010 was that plaintiff was

entitled to immediate release from prison on 24 September 2010.

11. The first defendant was obliged to process the review properly and in particular had

to:

11.1 Communicate the High Court of Namibia judgment of 24 September 2010 to

the prison authorities in Walvis Bay; and

4

11.2 Dispatch the original record and judgment in the review to the Clerk of the

Magistrates’ Court Outjo.

12. First defendant breached this duty by failing to communicate the said judgment to the

Walvis Bay prison and failing to dispatch the record to the Clerk of the Magistrates’

Court Outjo timeously or at all.

13. The second defendant failed to make enquiries regarding the outcome of the review

and plaintiff’s appeal.

14. In the premises the first and second defendants breached their respective obligations

and duties towards the plaintiff to ensure he is not detained longer than permitted by

law.

15. The third, fourth and fifth defendants equally owe the plaintiff the duties alleged and

are responsible for the actions of the officials employed by them.

Plaintiff’s claim

16. Plaintiff was imprisoned in the Walvis Bay prison until his eventual release on 1

December 2011.

17. Plaintiff was unlawfully imprisoned at the Walvis Bay prison from 25 September 2010

until 1 December 2011 – a total of 14 months and 5 days – and deprived of his liberty in

breach of Article 7 of the Namibian Constitution.’

[2] As a result the plaintiff alleged further that he had suffered constitutional and

general damages in the amount of N$ 1 000 000.00, as well as special damages for

loss of income, in the amount of N$ 70 000.00.

[3] Although liability was initially disputed, the parties - by the time of the first

case management hearing - were agreed, that the only dispute, which required

resolution, in this matter, was the issue of quantum.

[4] It should be mentioned that, in spite of various attempts at settlement, the

parties had been unable to reach agreement on this aspect and they were thus

directed to trial on the issue of quantum only.

5

[5] When the hearing commenced the defendants first endeavored to obtain

condonation for the late filing of 2 witness statements by correctional officers,

sketching the conditions pertaining in the Walvis Bay prison, where the plaintiff had

been detained, which application was however refused for the reasons given in a

short ex tempore judgment.

THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

[6] It was in such circumstances that the plaintiff became the only witness that

was eventually heard on the matter. He sketched his plight by firstly confirming his

witness statement which had been filed off record.

[7] That statement reads as follows:

‘1.1 On 2 December 2009 I was sentenced to a 3(three) years imprisonment by

the Magistrate for the District of Outjo, whereafter I filed a Notice of Appeal to the

High Court of Namibia (main Division) on/or about 24 March 2010.

1.2 As a result of the type of sentenced imposed on me, my matter was further

forwarded and send for statutory review to the High Court of Namibia on 22 January

2010.

1.3 Thereafter, and on 24 September 2010 the High Court set aside the 3(three)

year imprisonment on review and replaced it with a fine of N$2,000.00 (Two

Thousand Namibian Dollars) or twelve months imprisonment plus a further 2 (two)

years imprisonment only suspended for a 5(five) year period on condition that I am

not found guilty of extortion, obstructing the course of justice and fraud, during the

period of suspension. This sentence was ante dated to the 2nd of December 2009.

1.4 The effect of the High Court review judgment of 24 September 2010 had the

effect and consequence that I was entitled to my immediate release from prison,

(Walvis Bay prison) on 24 September 2010. This did not happen for the following

reasons as will be set out herein below:

1.4.1 The First Defendant failed to communicate the High Court Judgment

made on review of 24 September 2010 to the prison authorities in Walvis Bay;

6

1.4.2 The First Defendant failed to dispatch the original record and

judgment in review to the Clerk of the Magistrate’s Court Outjo.

1.4.3 The Second Defendant further failed to make the necessary enquires

regarding the outcome of the review.

2. As a result of the negligence on the part of the First Defendant I was unlawfully

imprisoned in the Walvis Bay prison until my eventual release on 1 December 2011. On that

basis I was unlawfully imprisoned at the Walvis Bay prison from 25 September 2010 until 1

December 2011 which totals a period of 14(fourteen) months and 5(five) days.

3. The aforesaid unlawful imprisonment deprived myself of my constitutional rights

among other Article 7 which provides for the right to freedom and liberty. I further submit

that I suffered constitutional and general damages in the amount of N$1,000,000.00 (One

Million Namibian Dollars) and loss of income to the amount of N$70,000.00 (Seventy

Thousand Namibian Dollars) which are calculated at N$5,000.00 (Five Thousand Namibian

Dollars) per month. I further confirm that I became aware of the unlawful imprisonment on

19 April 2013 when I was informed of it by the Ombudsman in Namibia. Thereafter the

necessary notice in terms of section 126(1) was given by my legal practitioners of record.

4. During my imprisonment the conditions were very unpleasant and my routine in

prison can be summarized as follows:

4.1 Between the period from Monday to Sunday one is obliged to wake up every

morning at 5’o clock in the morning whereafter you must proceed to bath and

thereafter eat at 6’o clock in the morning. The type of food is limited to porridge and

coffee in the mornings.

4.2 Thereafter one is allowed to stay outside in a confined area until 12 o’clock

one must return to the cells and is provided with bread and sweet aid cool drink.

4.3 The conditions in the cells are very bad as we are between 38 to 42 males in

a cell with only one open toilet within the cell. Sometimes there are not enough

banker beds and we are to sleep on the floor. In the beginning when I was in the

cells I did not have a bed.

7

4.4 Between the time period of 2 o’clock until 4 o’clock we are again released into

the confined area outside.

4.5 From 4 o’clock in the afternoon until 5 o’clock the next morning you are

locked up in the cell where you will receive soup or porridge and sometime chicken

or fish for dinner. In the evenings the food are drenched with vinegar which makes

the taste of the food very bad.

4.6 During my time in prison I got a skin infection as a result of the poor living

conditions which needed to be treated by a private medical doctor. The worst

experience I had during my incarceration was when Walvis Bay did not have water

for a substantial amount of time when the Kunene River was flooded. This problem

caused that the only toilet was blocked and we were prevented and not allowed to

have regular toilet visits as a result of the blocked toilet. The stench and hygienic

conditions in the cell was very bad and intolerable.

5. What I missed the most during my incarceration, without any doubt, are my 4(four)

children that were between the ages of 1(one) year up to 7(seven) years of age. I had the

minimum contact with them as I was situated in Walvis Bay and my whole family resided on

a farm in Usakos. Apart from my children, I missed my wife. Before I was arrested and

sentenced, I was a part time farmer who farmed at a communal farm at Spitzkoppe called

Black Range Pos 2. During my absence my farm stead deteriorate and some of my goats

got stolen. Before I was sentenced I had approximately 80 (eighty) goats and when I came

back I only had 27(twenty seven).

6. Before my sentencing I applied for an employment at a business called Loyal Juke

Box where I was to repair broken juke boxes. The approximately salary I had to receive was

N$5,000.00 (Five Thousand Namibian Dollars) per month.’

[8] The plaintiff testified further that he is presently 34 years of age and that he

has a wife and 4 children - who were unable to visit him as often as he would have

liked and as they wanted to - due to financial constraints. He emphasised that the

conditions in the cells were bad as they were overcrowded and as there was one

toilet and two showers for about 38 to 40 inmates - which situation was at one stage

exacerbated by a water shortage caused by the flooding of the Swakop or Kuiseb

rivers which caused the limited sanitary facilities in the cell not to work.

8

[9] He ascribed a skin condition, which he developed during his period of

detention, as caused by the unhygienic conditions pertaining in the cells.

[10] In support of his claim for loss of earnings he mentioned that he was a

mechanic repairing vehicles which gave him an average monthly income of N$

5000.00.

[11] During cross examination by Mr Khupe - who appeared on behalf of the 1st

and 5th defendants - the plaintiff’s claim having been withdrawn against the 2nd, 3rd

and 4th defendants - questioned why he had not mentioned this in his witness

statement, which omission the plaintiff was unable to explain. He then stated that he

was also a part-time farmer who would sell livestock on occasion.

[12] It then appeared that the fact, that he sells some of his livestock to earn a

living, had also not been mentioned in his aforementioned witness statement.

[13] When asked whether he could substantiate his claim for loss of income, the

plaintiff conceded that he did not have any proof in this regard.

[14] He was then cross- examined on a charge of stock theft which he faced at the

time and this line of questioning then revealed that the consequences of that charge

- in respect of which he was apparently eventually acquitted - did not impact on his

present claim.

[15] When asked about the prison conditions which he had to endure, he stated

that he was made to sleep on a mattress on the floor, which mattress was apparently

not to his liking and of bad quality.

[16] He confirmed further that for certain periods during the day the prisoners

would be allowed to go into a courtyard where they could exercise or smoke for

instance. He stated that he did not have to work while detained. He complained

about the food, for example that the porridge was too watery, and explained that this

caused hardship to him as he was accustomed to three full meals per day. He further

disliked the fact that he had to get up at 05h00 in the morning as he was used to get

up around 07h00. He also testified that government medical facilitates were not up

9

to standard and were not good in his view and that he would therefore always insist

on receiving private medical treatment.

[17] During cross-examination the plaintiff confirmed that he was not claiming any

loss of income arising from his farming losses which he had apparently incurred.

ARGUMENT

[18] In support of his client’s case Mr Coleman, who appeared for the plaintiff,

opened his address by alluding to the background facts of this case and by restating

that the 5th defendant had accepted vicarious liability for the negligent acts and/or

omissions which had occurred in the 1st defendant’s office which had resulted in the

plaintiff’s prolonged unlawful detention of some 435 days.

[19] He reminded this court, with reference to Levi J’s judgment, given in the

Hipandulwa matter1, that the plaintiff’s case entailed the deprivation of liberty which

should be viewed against the background that the liberty of the subject constituted a

cornerstone of democratic society and that the plaintiff had to suffer inhuman

conditions as a result of a simple administrative action which had not been followed.

He alluded to the fact that the plaintiff, aged 30 at the time, was deprived of regular

access to his family and that he had to endure overcrowded prison conditions and

bad food. He glancingly also touched on the plaintiff’s loss of income and the fact

that the plaintiff had claimed less than entitled to in this regard.

[20] More importantly Mr Coleman also handed in short heads of argument in

which he listed five cases in which the courts had awarded damages for unlawful

detention and in which awards - ranging from N$ 30 000.00 to N$ 300 000.00 - had

been made. Due to the varying time periods for which these damages had been

awarded, Mr Coleman, for the convenience of the court, had updated these awards

by applying an average of 10% CPI (Consumer Price Index) and he also adjusted

these awards, upwards, to a period of 14 months in each case.

[21] In fairness it should be mentioned that he also conceded that such adjusted

awards and the reduction thereof to daily amounts (which would then have to be

1 Hipandulwa v Kamupunya 1993 NR 254 (HC)

10

multiplied again to fit the plaintiff’s case), would not be an appropriate method of

calculating the plaintiff’s damages as this would result in a disproportionate award.

[22] Mr Khupe, in answer to these arguments, emphasized on behalf of the

respondents that the plaintiff’s unlawful detention had not been occasioned by any

malice, but as a result of a clerical error and that the court should take into account

how the plaintiff got into the position complained of in the first place. He requested

the court not to award exemplary damages and to take into account that it had been

difficult to find guidance in the case law as to what an appropriate amount to be

awarded for damages should be. He referred the court to the decisions made by the

Botswana High- and Supreme Courts in Oatile v The Attorney-General2 and

Attorney-General v Oatile3 in which the High Court had initially awarded to the

plaintiff P 100 000.00 in constitutional damages, which award the Supreme Court

then reduced to P 20 000.00 on appeal for the unreasonable delay of the plaintiff’s

prosecution which had spanned over a period of some 12 years. He then requested

the court to take into account the principles listed in these judgments.

[23] Mr Khupe also referred the court to the judgment of Molete AJ delivered on 20

February 2012 in the Malefetsane Tsehla4 matter, a High Court of Lesotho judgment,

in which M 50 000.00 were awarded to the plaintiff for unlawful arrest and detention.

[24] He then focused argument on the plaintiff’s claim for loss of income and

pointed out that the plaintiff’s evidence in this regard had not been satisfactory at all,

that new evidence had been tendered in respect of the income earned as a

mechanic in respect of which no documents had been supplied in support. All in all,

he submitted that the court should award an amount of about N$ 100 000.00 to the

plaintiff for the main claim and that the court should reject the second claim relating

to the loss of income.

[25] In reply Mr Coleman submitted that in spite of the shortcomings it was likely

that the plaintiff must have had some work and that it was probable that he had

earned about five thousand dollars on average per month.

2 2010 (1) BLR 404 (HC)3 2011 (2) BLR 209 CA4 CIV/T/463/11

11

[26] Finally he submitted that given the parameters set by the various awards

made in the cases referred to and because of the factors impacting thereon that the

claimed amount of N$ 1 000 000.00 was appropriate as an award in this instance.

THE DETERMINATION OF THE AWARD

[27] When a court is requested to make a determination of what damages should

be awarded in any particular case the court will firstly have to take into account the

manner which bought about the complainant’s plight and the degree of impairment of

dignity and discomfort which occurred as a result. Obviously also the length of the

detention will play a role as well as the court’s duty to give recognition to the value of

an individual’s liberty as enshrined in the constitution and to take all these aspects

into account when awarding damages ultimately. There surely is no numerus

clausus as regards the factors a court can take into account in this regard, for as

long as they are relevant to the determination of damages.

[28] After considering the evidence and the submissions made by counsel it

became clear that the plaintiff’s prolonged incarceration, as unfortunate as it may

have been, was not occasioned by any malice and there is also no other factor, in

my view, pertaining to this case, which would demand the imposition of exemplarily

damages.

[29] Also the conditions of imprisonment alluded to might not have been perfect.

However, and if one considers the cumulative effect of the complained of prison

conditions it cannot be said that the plaintiff was incarcerated in severe inhumane

conditions and this factor will thus, in my view, not impact materially on the award of

damages, although it cannot be discounted all together. It is clear that the plaintiff

would have endured greater access to - and would also have enjoyed the solace and

company of his family, would he not have found himself in detention. I accept that

the prolonged incarceration of the plaintiff did cause him to suffer discomfort and

might even have caused him some emotional distress - all aspects which I take into

account. Obviously I will also have to take into account the personal circumstances

of the plaintiff and that he had to endure the discomfort of the said conditions

complained of which must have caused him a measure of suffering and an

impairment of his dignity.

12

[30] It would also appear that - in the quest to arrive at just compensation for a

lengthy period of unlawful detention - it would not be appropriate to establish what

that damage would be per day in today’s monetary value.5 I will therefore not follow

this approach.

[31] What remains relevant however is that regard should be had also to

comparative awards, keeping in mind that each case must be determined with

reference to its own particular circumstances.

[32] The cases referred to by Mr Khupe have proved unhelpful. The Oatile cases

relate to the unreasonable delay of prosecution and they are thus not helpful in the

determination of quantum in this case. In fairness to Mr Khupe I must state that he

realised this to be the case. The Tsehla judgment is unfortunately very cryptic in that

it does not even emerge from the judgment for how long precisely the plaintiff there

was detained, so no guidance could be obtained from that judgment.

[33] On the other hand the judgments referred to by Mr Coleman have greater

relevance. He has set out the awards made in those cases and as updated and

adjusted them to suit the present matter, as already mentioned above, more

particularly as follows:

5 Getachew v Government of the Republic of Namibia 2006 (2) NR 720 (HC) at [41] : Compare also : Alves v Lom Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another 2012 (1) SA 399 (GSJ) at [36] were Willis J stated : ‘[36] During the course of hearing counsel's submissions on quantum it was agreed that a court must avoid, on the one hand, sending out a message that there are large sums of money to be made out of the mistakes which may be made by State officials. On the other hand, it was also accepted that the amount should not be derisory, showing contempt or indifference to the loss of freedom. The approach to quantum should be different, in a case such as this, from the situation where there has been an unlawful arrest and/or detention. An unlawful arrest need not always be intentional but may also occur negligently. (See, for example, Thompson and Another v Minister of Police and Another 1971 (1) SA 371 (E); and Newman v Prinsloo and Another 1973 (1) SA 125 (W) at 127G – 128A.) Nevertheless, society's disapprobation is less in a case such as this than one in which there has been an unlawful arrest. Counsel for the parties spent some time in making computations according to a daily rate. The question arises as to whether there should be a 'per diem rate' in matters of this kind. A 'daily rate' in cases such as this would be inappropriate. It would be too formulaic to do justice in different cases.( I have adopted the adjective 'formulaic' in respectful admiration of Cameron JA's pithy use of the word in the Olitzki case (supra) [Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA) (2001 (8) BCLR 779)]. As I pointed out in Mvu v Minister of Safety and Security and Another,( 2009 (6) SA 82 (GSJ) (2009 (2) SACR 291) at para 15.) views as to what may be an appropriate award in a particular set of circumstances may differ quite markedly from person to person.( In para 15).’

13

‘6.1 In August 1993 (21 years ago) Levy J (in HIPANDULWA matter) awarded

N$70,000 for about 2 months’ – applying an average of 10% CPI6 this will be about

N$150 000 today! Adjusted for 14 months it would amount to about N$1,050,000;

6.2 In 2006 Muller J (GETACHEW) awarded N$65 000 for about 3 months. That

is about N$120 000 in today’s terms. Adjusted for 14 months: about N$560, 000;

6.3 In 2012 a South African judge awarded R 300 000 for 15 months’

imprisonment.7 About R 420 000 today;

6.4 The same judge awarded R 30 000 in 2009 for overnight detention.8 About

N$45,000,00 today. Adjusted for 14 months on a daily basis would result in 431 days

X N$45, 000: About N$19 million!!;

6.5 In 2006 the SCA reduced an award of R 500 000 to R 90 000 for 5 days.9

Today about N$160 000. Adjusted for 14 months conservatively would amount to N

2,240,000 (multiplying N$160 000 with 14).’

[34] If one has regard to these cases it emerges that the Hipandulwa judgment

must be distinguished on the facts as in that case the unlawful detention was

accompanied by serious assaults and a severe invasion of the plaintiff’s bodily

integrity.10

[35] The award made in the Getachev judgment, that is the relied upon High Court

judgment, was however reduced on appeal by the Supreme Court from N$ 65

000.00 to N$ 10 000.00.11

[36] It is further clear that the awards made in the Mvu v Minister of Safety &

Security case and Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour are out of kilter with the

general trend, even if one takes into account that the initial award made in Seymour

was reduced.12

6 Singh v Ebrahim [2010] 3 All SA 240 (D) at para [9]7 Alves v Lom Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another 2012 (1) SA 399 (GSJ) at [49]8 Mvu v Minister of Safety & Security 2009 (6) SA 82 (GSJ) (2009 (2) SACR 291)9 Minister of Safety & Security v Seymour 2006 (6) SA 320 (SCA) ([2007] 1 All SA 558)10 See: Hipandulwa v Kamupunya op cit at p258 A - H11 Govt of the Rep of Namibia v Getachew 2008 (1) NR 1 (SC) at [80]12 Minister of Safety & Security v Seymour op cit at [21] to [22]

14

[37] Given this background I consider the award made in Alves v Lom Business

Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another as the most useful point of departure as, in that

case, although there are certain factual differences, there also had been the

‘unnecessary imprisonment’ of the plaintiff - for some 15 months - which resulted in

an award of R300 000.00, which according to Mr Coleman amounts to about N$ 420

000.00, in today’s monetary terms. I will therefore be guided by that award which - in

addition to taking into account the other factors enumerated above - I will adjust

slightly upwards – also in the recognition of our country’s constitutional values

generally and the inherent value afforded by our constitution to the liberty of persons

specifically.

[38] As far as the plaintiff’s claim for loss of income is concerned it becomes clear

that the criticisms leveled in this regard have merit.

[39] It is unclear why the plaintiff has failed to state this in his witness statement

that he used to earn, on a monthly average, an amount of N$ 5000.00 as a motor

mechanic. Surely this witness statement must have been drawn up with the

assistance of his legal practitioner of record in circumstances where it was clear -

from the outset - that this aspect had to be addressed, as he had also instituted a

claim for loss of income. It would have been a simple matter for the plaintiff to have

done so. Also no supporting documentation was produced in support of this new

averment/claim.

[40] What is further conspicuous in regard to this claim is that the plaintiff failed to

testify altogether what particular amounts he had earned per month, and with

reference to what period, the average amount of N$ 5000.00, that was now claimed,

had been calculated.

[41] All in all, it appears that this evidence constituted an afterthought in respect of

which the plaintiff had not taken his legal practitioners into his confidence when he

consulted with them for purposes of drafting the witness statement.

[42] It is also clear, if one has regard to the said witness statement, that it merely

contained a reference to an amount of N$ 5000.00, which had apparently been

15

offered to him, per month, by a business called ‘Loyal Juke Box’. This offer however

never materialised.

[43] Ultimately I therefore conclude that the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim

for loss of income, which claim is therefore not allowed.

[44] In the further result, and on the strength of what has been stated above, I

award damages to the plaintiff for his unlawful detention in the amount of N$ 450

000.00.

[45] Costs follow the result, such cost are to include the costs of one instructed-

and one instructing counsel.

----------------------------------

H GEIER

Judge

16

APPEARANCES

PLAINTIFF: Mr GB Coleman

Instructed by MB De Klerk & Associates,

Windhoek

DEFENDANT: Mr MC Khupe

Government Attorney, Windhoek