administrative body itself not required. Fire Tech Systems CC v Namibia Airports Company Limited (A 330-2014) [2016] NAHCMD 220 (22 July 2016) Administrative law - Administrative action - Review of - Discretion of court - Court may decline to set aside invalid administrative act - Role of effluxion of time and considerations of practicality. Fire Tech Systems CC v Namibia Airports Company Limited (A 330-2014) [2016] NAHCMD 220 (22 July 2016) Administrative law – Review - Setting aside of award of tender - Consequences - Such to be fully considered – Interest of all parties to be considered - In casu, award not set aside, despite imperfect administrative process. Fire Tech Systems CC v Namibia Airports Company Limited (A 330-2014) [2016] NAHCMD 220 (22 July 2016) Administrative Law - administrative body and administrative power defined – review powers of the court – the audi rule. Skorpion Mining Company (Pty) Ltd v Road Fund Administration (I 2063-2014) [2016] NAHCMD 201 (12 July 2016). Administrative Law – Failure of Minister to exercise discretion – Minister failing to exercise discretion pertaining to conditions of intervening in decisions of Namibia Airports Company and abdicating decision to the President – A discretionary power vested in one official or body - may not be usurped by another-whether the former is subordinate to the latter or not – Minister thus having acted unlawfully. Anhui Foreign Economic Construction v Minister of Works and Transport (A21-2016)[2016] NAHCMD 265 (9 September 2016) ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES Will - Construction - of -involves ascertaining the intention of the testator-Modus-a qualification or obligation added to a gift or a testamentary disposition. Egerer v Executrust (Pty) Ltd (A248-2015) [2016] NAHCMD 221 (22 July 2016). Administration of Estates- Role of Executrix in dealing with estate property. Brink & Another v Erongo All Sure Insurance & Others (I 3249/2015) [2016] NAHCMD 200 (8 July 2016). Administrative of Estates — Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 — Removal of Executor from office — Section 54 —May be removed from office — by master — If he fails to perform satisfactorily any duty imposed upon him – Executor may resist his
legal practitioners owes the duty to the court first and then to their clients. Hausiku v The Master of the High Court (A 13/2016) [2016] NAHCMD 392 (15 December 2016). DEFAMATION Law of Defamation – Defamatory remarks made to prominent members of society and to the media through media statements – Plaintiff is the Inspector-General of NAMPOL – Statements made accusing the plaintiff of being a liar and perjurer – Defence that the statements made are true and in the public interest – Test to be applied by the courts in Defamation cases – Proof of defamatory statements raised the rebuttable presumption that such statements are wrongful and intentional – The plaintiff need not allege nor prove the falsity of the defamatory statement and need not allege anything more than his or her existence in a particular society where it is alleged that his or her reputation was damaged in the eyes of the community at large – In order to rebut the presumption of wrongfulness, a defendant may show that the statement was true and that it was in the public benefit for it to be made; or that the statement constituted fair comment; or that the statement was made on a privileged occasion – Defendant failed to prove that such statements privileged or that public policy justifies the publication – Statements found to be defamatory – Defence not succeeding – Quantum of damages reduced to be aligned with previous awards. Ndeitunga v Kavaongelwa (I 3967/2009) [2016] NAHCMD 99 (11 April 2016). DELICT Delict – Defamation – meaning and elements – defences – public interest, privilege, truthfulness. Bednarek & Others v Hannam & Another (I 2615/2013) [2016] NAHCMD 12 (03 February 2016). Damages – Quantum – See Shivute v Endjala (I 1876/2014] [2016] NAHCMD 13 (19 November 2015). Delict – Vacarious liability of employer - An employee who is clearly mandated to work within certain guidelines but decides to deviate from the scope of authority of his or her employer and the deviation is remotely detached from his mandate – is solely responsible for his or her deeds. – An employer cannot be held vicariously liable for those deeds. – In that determination the court applied both subjective and objective