High Court Namibia 1995

7/27/2019 High Court Namibia 1995

1/56

CASE NO. . . . . . . . . .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

I n t he mat t er bet ween

THE REHOBOTH BASTERGEMEENTE Fi r st Appl i cant

JOHANNES GERARD ADOLF DIERGAARDT Second Appl i cant

ver susTHE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA Fi r st Respondent

THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS REHOBOTH Second RespondentCORNELIUS MICHAEL BRANDT Thi r d Respondent

THE KHOMAS REGIONAL COUNCIL Fourt h Respondent

THE HARDAP REGIONAL COUNCIL Fi f t h Respondent

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR THE

CENTRAL REGION Si xt h Respondent

CORAM: STRYDOM, J.P. et HANNAH, J.

Hear d on: 1995- 02- 27Del i ver ed on: 1995- 05- 26

J UDGMENT

STRYDOM, J . P. : By not i ce of mot i on t he appl i cant s appl i ed f or t he

f ol l owi ng rel i ef :

1. An or der decl ar i ng that al l endor sement s by t he Second Respondent

on 16 Oct ober , 1991 on t he l and t i t l es r ef er r ed t o i n

subparagr aphs 27. 6; 28. 2. 4; 29. 10; 34. 2 and 36. 12 of t he

Appl i cant s' Foundi ng Af f i davi t pur por t i ng t o vest t he pr oper t i es

descr i bed i n t he sai d l and t i t l es i n t he Fi r st Respondent ar e nul l

and voi d.


2/56

2

2. An or der di r ect i ng t he Second Respondent t o cancel t he sai d

endor sement s on al l t he sai d l and t i t l es and copi es t her eof i n

t he r ecor ds kept by hi m.

3. An or der i nt er di ct i ng t he Second Respondent f r om r egi st er i ng any

t r ansf er of l and by endor sement of t he l and t i t l es i n r espect

t her eof unl ess t he pr ovi si ons of sect i on 13 ( 2) ( b) ( i ) and 48 of

t he Regi st r at i on of Deeds i n Rehoboth Act no. 93/ 1976 and the

f i r st condi t i on r egi st er ed agai nst such l and t i t l e have been

compl i ed wi t h.

4. An or der i nt er di ct i ng t he Fi r st Respondent f r om al i enat i ng or i n

any ot her manner what soever deal i ng wi t h t he pr opert i es r ef er r ed

t o i n pr ayer 1 above.

5. An or der i nt er di ct i ng t he Fi r st and Second Respondent s f r om t aki ng

any st eps t o endor se, i n t er ms of Schedul e 5 of t he Const i t ut i on

of t he Republ i c of Nami bi a, any l and t i t l es r egi st er ed i n t he name

of t he Fi r st Appl i cant , "Di e Kapt ei n en Raad van di e Rehobot h

Bast ergemeent e, vi r en t en behoewe van di e Rehobot h

Bast ergemeent e", or t he Government of Rehobot h, except i n so f ar

as such endor sement s r el at e sol el y t o t he pr oper t i es descr i bed i n

Annexur e " J D57 of t he Foundi ng Af f i davi t .

6. An or der di r ect i ng Second Respondent t o r ect i f y t he l and t i t l e

r ef er r ed t o i n subpar agr aph 30. 4 of t he Appl i cant s' f oundi ng

af f i davi t by del et i ng t he wor ds


3/56

3

"di e reger i ng van Rehobot h" t her ef r om and subst i t ut i ng t her ef or e

t he words " di e Kapt ei n en Raad van di e Rehobot h Bast ergemeente,

vi r en t en behoewe van di e Rehobot h Bast ergemeent e".

7. An or der decl ar i ng t hat t he cancel l at i on of t he l and t i t l e

r ef er r ed t o i n subpar agr aph 36. 3 i s i nval i d and unl awf ul and

di r ect i ng t he Second Appl i cant ( si c) t o r ect i f y t he sai d l and

t i t l e accor di ngl y.

8. An or der decl ar i ng t hat t he Fi r st Appl i cant i s t he r egi st er ed

owner of Er f 445 Rehobot h, and t hat i t i s not vest ed i n t he Fi r st

Respondent due t o t he endor sement made by t he Second Respondent

on 16 Oct ober , 1991 on t he l and t i t l e r ef er r ed t o i n subpar agr aph

34. 2 of t he f oundi ng af f i davi t .

9. An order

9. 1 Di r ect i ng t he Fi r st Respondent t o i mmedi at el y gr ant access

t o al l t he books, document s and suppor t i ng voucher s sei zed

by t he Fi r st Respondent f r om t he Fi r st Appl i cant or f r om t he

of f i ces f or mer l y occupi ed as i s r ef er r ed t o i n par agr aph

46. 2 of t he f oundi ng af f i davi t so as t o enabl e t he Fi r st

Appl i cant , wi t h or wi t hout t he ai d of an account ant t o

est abl i sh what par t of t he amount of R800 538. 11 and R74

689. 33 t aken by t he Fi r st Respondent as i s set out i n

par agr aph 46 of t he Foundi ng Af f i davi t , was and i s t he

pr oper t y of t he Fi r st Appl i cant ;


4/56

4

9. 2 Di r ect i ng Fi r st Appl i cant t o dr aw an account r ef l ect i ng such

an amount and how i t i s cal cul at ed and t o submi t t hi s account

wi t hi n t hr ee mont hs f r om t he dat e of t he Cour t ' s or der t o t he

Fi r st Respondent ;

9. 3 That t he af oresai d account be debat ed by Fi r st Appl i cant and

Fi r st Respondent ; and

9. 4 Di r ect i ngFi r st Respondent t o pay t o Fi r st Appl i cant t he account

( i f any) f ound t o be due t o i t .

10. An or der

10. 1 Di r ect i ng t he Fi r st Respondent i mmedi at el y t o render t o

Fi r st Appl i cant an account r ef l ect i ng al l money col l ect ed or

r ecei ved by i t i n Rehobot h si nce t he date of i ndependence

wi t h debat ement of such account ; and

10. 2 Payment of t he amount ( i f any) due to t he Fi r st Appl i cant .

11. An or der decl ar i ng t hat t he Second Appl i cant ' s proper t i es bei ng

er f D17 ( por t i on of port i on 1 of Rehoboth Townl ands 302) and

subdi vi si ons 36 and 37 of t he sai d f arm Rehoboth Townl ands 302,

are not vest ed i n t he Fi r st Respondent due t o t he endorsement s

made by t he Second Respondent on 16 Oct ober , 1991 on t he l and

t i t l es r ef er r ed t o i n pr ayer 1 above.


5/56

512. An or der

12. 1 Decl ar i ng Second Appl i cant t o be t he owner of t he f ul l extent

of Er f D17 Rehobot h;

12. 2 Di r ect i ng t he Second Respondent t o r ect i f y t he deeds r ecords

kept by hi m accor di ngl y;

12. 3 I nt er di ct i ng Thi r d Respondent f r om deal i ng wi t h, al i enat i ng

or encumber i ng er f number D467 ( bei ng a subdi vi si on of t he

sai d er f D17) .

13. Cost s t o be pai d by t he Fi r st Respondent , except t hose cost s

r el at i ng t o t he i ssue wi t h Thi r d Respondent whi ch cost s are t o be

pai d by hi m.

14. Fur t her and/ or al t er nat i ve r el i ef . "

The f oundi ng af f i davi t i s deposed t o by t he Second Appl i cant who

al l eges t hat he i s t he dul y el ect ed Kapt ei n of t he Rehoboth Bast er

Communi t y who was so el ect ed i n accor dance wi t h the pr ovi si ons of t he

Pat er nal Laws of t he Fi r st Appl i cant . Thi s el ect i on t ook pl ace at a

meet i ng hel d on 22 J une, 1991 at Rehoboth. The Fi r st Appl i cant i s

descr i bed as " an associ at i on of per sons wi t h l egal per sonal i t y

competent t o acqui r e and hol d pr opert y, and wi t h perpet ual

successi on" .

Al so, accor di ng to t he Second Appl i cant , he appoi nt ed member s of t he

Kapt ei n' s Counci l and t hree member s were dul y el ect ed as member s of

t he Vol ksr aad of t he Fi r st Appl i cant .


6/56

6

Thi s al so t ook pl ace i n accor dance wi t h t he pr ovi si ons of t he sai d

Pat ernal Laws at t he meet i ng of t he 22 J une, 1991. The Second

Appl i cant t hen f ur t her al l eged t hat t he Kapt ei n' s Counci l and

Vol ksraad ar e t he sol e r epr esent at i ves of t he Fi r st Appl i cant .

The appl i cat i on of t he Appl i cant s was t r i gger ed by t he i mpl ementat i on

of Schedul e 5 of t he Nami bi an Const i t ut i on whi ch pr ovi des t hat al l

pr oper t y i mmedi atel y pr i or t o t he dat e of I ndependence, t he ownershi p

and cont r ol whereof vest ed i n t he Government of Rehobot h, shal l now

vest i n or be under t he cont r ol of t he Gover nment of Nami bi a.

I t i s al l eged t hat as a r esul t of t he pr ovi si ons of Schedul e 5 t he

Second Respondent , at t he request of and on the i nst r uct i ons of t he

Fi r st Respondent , ef f ect ed endor sement s on t he l and t i t l es i n respect

of t he l and f or mi ng t he subj ect of t he appl i cat i on. Thi s l and, so i ti s al l eged, was t he pr oper t y of t he Fi r st Appl i cant . As a r esul t of

t he endorsement s t hi s l and now vest s i n t he Fi r st Respondent .

The ai m of t he appl i cat i on i s t hen t o decl ar e nul l and voi d such

endor sement s and t o restor e Fi r st Appl i cant , t he r i ght f ul owner , i n

i t s pr oper t y. Fur t her mor e t he ai m of t he appl i cat i on i s al so t o put t o

an end and t o pr ohi bi t t he possi bl e t r ansf er of l and, or por t i ons

t her eof , t he owner shi p of whi ch has al ways vest ed and st i l l vest s i n

t he Fi r st Appl i cant . Fi r st Appl i cant al so appl i es t o decl ar e nul l and

voi d t he t r ansf er of er ven and ot her pr oper t y i n f avour of pur por t ed

successor s i n t i t l e whi ch t r ansf er s di d


7/56

7

not compl y wi t h t he pr ovi si ons of sect i ons 13( 2) ( b) and 48 of t he

Rehobot h Deeds Act , Act no. 93 of 1976.

I n regar d t o t he pr oper t y Rehobot h Townl ands 302 i t i s al l eged t hat

t he endor sement i n r egar d t o t he t i t l e deed of t hi s pr oper t y had t he

ef f ect of depr i vi ng t he Fi r st Appl i cant , who was t he owner of many of

t he er ven i n t he t ownshi p, of i t s pr oper t y r i ght s i n such er ven. I n

addi t i on such endor sement al so i nf r i nges upon t he owner shi p of pr i vat e

i ndi vi dual s who, pr i or t o I ndependence, had bought such pr oper t y f r om

t he Fi r st Appl i cant . I n t hi s regar d i t i s f ur t her al l eged t hat si nce

I ndependence many erven, t he pr oper t y of t he Fi r st Appl i cant , wer e

al i enat ed by t he Fi r st Respondent . I n r egar d t o t hese t r ansact i ons t he

Fi r st Appl i cant i nt ends t o ask t he Cour t t o di r ect t hat f ul l

par t i cul ar s of such t r ansact i ons be gi ven by the Fi r st Respondent t o

enabl e t he Fi r st Appl i cant t o appl y f or t he set t i ng asi de t her eof .

The Fi r st Appl i cant al so l ays cl ai m t o par t of t wo amount s namel y $800

538. 11 and $74 689. 33 whi ch, on t he dat e of I ndependence, st ood t o t he

cr edi t of t he Gover nment of Rehoboth i n i t s No. 1 and 2 account s wi t h

Fi r st Nat i onal Bank, Rehobot h. Al l books and document s r el at i ng t o

t hese amount s were al so sei zed by the Fi r st Respondent . Par t of t hese

moneys, so i t i s al l eged, bel onged t o Fi r st Appl i cant and, al t hough

such money was deposi t ed i n t he banki ng accounts of t he Gover nment of

Rehobot h, i t never became t hei r pr oper t y as i t was deal t wi t h by t he

Gover nment as agent of t he Fi r st Appl i cant .


8/56

8

Si nce I ndependence Fi r st Respondent has al so col l ect ed moneys whi ch

were due t o t he Fi r st Appl i cant , such as r epayment s made by purchases

of pr oper t y sol d by Fi r st Appl i cant , r ent al f or pr oper t y l eased and

r epayment of l oans made by Fi r st Appl i cant t o thi r d par t i es. I n or der

t o det er mi ne what was owed to i t t he Fi r st Appl i cant cl ai ms a

debat ement of account . Thi s was al so cl ai med i n r egard t o t he amount s

of $800 538. 11 and $74 689. 33 i n or der t o est abl i sh whi ch par t t her eof

bel onged t o t he Fi r st Appl i cant .

The mat t er was opposed by t he Fi r st Respondent who i n gener al al l eged

t hat on a cor r ect i nt er pr et at i on of Sect i on 23( 1) of t he Rehobot h

Sel f - Gover nment Act , 1976, Act No. 56 of 1976 ( t he Act ) , al l such

pr opert y vest ed i n t he Gover nment of Rehobot h and not t he Fi r st

Appl i cant . Consequent l y on t he i mpl ement at i on of Schedul e 5 of t he

Const i t ut i on t he pr oper t y i s vest ed t her eupon i n t he Gover nment ofNami bi a.

When t he mat t er came bef or e Cour t on the 20t h September , 1993 t wo

poi nt s i n l i mi ne wer e rai sed by t he Fi r st Respondent namel y t he l ocus

st andi of t he Appl i cant s t o r ai se i ssues and t he non- j oi nder of ot her

i nt er est ed t he par t i es. I n a j udgment of t he Cour t del i ver ed on 22

Oct ober , 1993 t he Cour t f ound t hat t he Appl i cant s had the necessar y

l ocus st andi t o br i ng t he Appl i cat i on but i t uphel d t he poi nt i n

l i mi ne concer ni ng t he non- j oi nder of ot her i nt er est ed par t i es. I n t hi s

r egar d i t di r ected t he Appl i cant s t o j oi n al l i nt er est ed t hi r d par t i es

or to


9/56

9

appr oach t he Cour t t o i ssue a r ul e ni si cal l i ng on al l such par t i es t o

show cause why t he rel i ef sought by t he Fi r st Appl i cant shoul d not be

gr ant ed. Such a rul e ni si was i ssued by t he Cour t on t he 18 Febr uary,

1994 r et ur nabl e on t he 25 March, 1994. None of t he i nt er est ed part i es

has f i l ed any af f i davi t s.

At t he hear i ng of t he 20 Sept ember , 1993 appl i cat i on was al so made by

t he Appl i cant s t o cross- exami ne cer t ai n of t he deponent s on behal f of

t he Fi r st Respondent on t he i ssue whet her t he pr oper t i es, f or mi ng t he

subj ect of t he Appl i cat i on, wer e pr oper t i es whi ch r el at ed t o mat t er s

i n r espect of whi ch t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y of Rehobot h was

empowered t o make l aws i n t erms of Sect i on 23 of t he Act . The Cour t

al l owed t he Appl i cat i on and r ef er r ed t hi s speci f i c i ssue t o evi dence.

The Cour t al so gave di r ect i ons as t o t he pr ocedures t o be f ol l owed i n

t hi s r egar d. At t he hear i ng of t he 20 Sept ember , 1993 t he Fi r stRespondent al so agr eed t o t he or ders set out i n par agr aphs 11 and 12

of t he Not i ce of Mot i on and whi ch concer ned the per sonal pr oper t y of

t he Second Appl i cant . As a r esul t t her eof t he Cour t , on t he 18

Febr uary, 1994 gr ant ed or ders i n that r egard. On t he 20 Sept ember ,

1993 t he Mai n Appl i cat i on was post poned si ne di e and ei t her par t y was

gi ven t he r i ght t o set t he mat t er down f or hear i ng.

The mat t er was agai n set down f or hear i ng on t he 5t h Sept ember , 1994

and f ol l owi ng days. On t hi s occasi on t he Fi r st Appl i cant gave not i ce

of i t s i nt ent i on t o amend i t s Not i ce of Mot i on t o i ncl ude f ur t her

r el i ef . Because of t he


10/56

10

vol ume of documents di scover ed by t he Fi r st Respondent , and

pr obl ems i n connect i on t her ewi t h, t he Appl i cant s appl i ed f or a

post ponement . Af t er argument was heard by t he Cour t t he

appl i cat i on was grant ed but t he quest i on of cost s was r eserved.

On t he 11 November , 1994 t he Appl i cant s f ormal l y moved thei r

appl i cat i on f or an amendment of t he Not i ce of Mot i on, by addi ng

new paragr aphs 9. 1, 9. 2, 9. 3. 1 and 9. 3. 2 and to change the

number i ng of t he exi st i ng paragr aphs 9, 10, 13 and 14 t o read 10,

11, 12 and 13. Thi s was possi bl e because i n r espect of t he

pr evi ous paragr aphs 11 and 12 t he Cour t had al r eady gr ant ed t he

order s set out t her ei n. The new added paragr aphs r ead as f ol l ows:

"9. 1 An or der decl ar i ng t hat Schedul e 5 of t he Const i t ut i on,

i nsof ar as i t pur por t s t o vest owner shi p or cont r ol of

Fi r st Appl i cant ' s pr oper t y that i mmedi at el y pr i or t ot he dat e of I ndependence vest ed i n t he Gover nment of

Rehoboth by vi r t ue of t he pr ovi si on of Sect i on 23 of

t he Rehobot h Sel f Government Act no. 56 of 1976, i n the

Fi r st Respondent wi t hout t he payment of j ust

compensat i on t o Fi r st Appl i cant , i s r epugnant t o t he

pr ovi si ons of t he Const i t ut i on and t her ef or e voi d t o

t hat ext ent .

9. 2 Al t er nat i vel y t o par agr aph 9. 1 above: Or der i ng t hat

paragr aph (1) as r ead wi t h paragr aph ( 3) of Schedul e 5

of t he Const i t ut i on ( i nsof ar as Schedul e 5 i s appl i cabl e

t o pr oper t y of t he Rehoboth Gover nment ) pr ovi des f or t he

payment of j ust compensat i on t o t he Fi r st Respondent , as

a condi t i on pr ecedent t o t he vest i ng of any pr oper t y of

t he Rehobot h Gover nment i n t he Fi r st Respondent


11/56

i n t er ms of t he pr ovi si ons of par agr aph ( 1) of t he sai d

Schedul e.

9. 3. 1 Or der i ng t hat , as a consequence of the order r ef er r ed t oi n par agr aph 9. 1, al t er nat i vel y par agr aph 9. 2 above, al l

pr oper t y of t he Fi r st Appl i cant , t he owner shi p or

cont r ol of whi ch vest ed i n the Government of Rehobot h by

vi r t ue of t he pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 23 of t he Rehobot h

Sel f - Government Act No. 56 of 1976, r ever t s back t o

Fi r st Appl i cant subj ect t o exi st i ng r i ght s of t hi r d

par t i es.

9. 3. 2 An or der di r ect i ng Second Respondent , i n or der t o gi ve

ef f ect t o t he or der set out i n 9. 3. 1 above, t o r ect i f y

al l l and t i t l es concer ned accor di ngl y and t o t ake al l

such st eps necessary. "

As a r esul t of al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he af f i davi t of F. F.

St el l macher , on behal f of t he Fi r st Respondent , Second Appl i cant f i l ed

f ur t her af f i davi t s concer ni ng t he hi st or y of Er f 212 of whi ch Er f A

851 i s a par t of . Thi s was not r epl i ed t o by t he Fi r st Respondent .

The mat t er was agai n set down f or hear i ng on t he 27 February, 1995.

Through a ser i es of agreements r eached between t he par t i es, and whi ch

wer e pl aced bef ore t he Cour t as Rul e 37 mi nut es, t he part i es were abl e

t o excl ude t he l eadi ng of al l evi dence and t he Cour t was t her ef or eonl y addr essed i n ar gument by counsel on bot h si des. Mr de Br uyn,

assi st ed by Mr Ol i vi er , appear ed f or t he Appl i cant s wher eas Mr

Gaunt l et t , assi st ed by Mr Mar i t z, appear ed f or t he Fi r st Respondent .

The r el i ef cl ai med i n t er ms of paragraph 9. 1 above was not persi st ed

i n.


12/56

12

Al t hough t he Cour t was addr essed by bot h si des on t he i ssue of onus,

Counsel wer e agr eed, and cor r ect l y so i n my opi ni on, t hat t he

i nci dence of t he onus was not r eal l y mater i al t o the out come of t he

case as i t , t o a gr eat ext ent , t ur ned ar ound t he i nt er pr et at i on of

Sect i on 23. I t was t hen al so not sur pr i si ng t hat t he mai n t hr ust of

Counsel ' s argument was ai med at t he i nt er pr et at i on of Sect i on 23( 1) of

t he Act and t o a l esser extent al so Schedul e 5 of t he Const i t ut i on.

Thi s case, and t he var i ous and vol umi nous documents whi ch wer e pl aced

bef ore t he Cour t , are st eeped i n t he hi st ory of t he Bast er Communi t y.

I n t he ci r cumst ances, and f or a bet t er under st andi ng of t he i ssues

ment i oned, I f i nd i t appr opr i at e t o st ar t wi t h a shor t r esume of t he

hi st ory of t he Bast er Communi t y. I n doi ng so I have made use of t he

Memorandum of Dr Budack and t he ar t i cl e of Mr van der Heuwel i n the

Sur vey J our nal of Apr i l , 1985.

From t hese document s i t seems, af t er a t r ek f r om de Tui n i n t he Cape

Col ony t he Bast er peopl e set t l ed i n Rehobot h and vi ci ni t y ar ound 1871.

Hermanus van Wyk was t he Kapt ei n and, t ogether wi t h hi s counci l l ors

conduct ed t he necessary negot i at i ons wi t h t r i bal gover nment s such as

t he Namas and t he Hereros. Anot her mi l est one was t he dr af t i ng and

accept ance of a Pr ovi si onal Const i t ut i on dur i ng t hi s t r ek t o Rehobot h.

Thi s occur r ed at War mbad on t he 15t h December , 1868. On t he same dat e

a "Vol ksr aad" was el ect ed and t he previ ous appoi ntment of Hermanus van

Wyk, as Kapt ei n, was conf i r med.


13/56

13

The Pr ovi si onal Const i t ut i on, i n r evi sed f or m, was pr omul gat ed on t he

31st J anuary, 1872. Fr om t i me to t i me new l aws wer e added t o t he

Const i t ut i on whi ch became known as t he Par ent al Laws. These Laws were

not r est r i ct ed t o pur el y const i t ut i onal mat t er s but al so i ncl uded a

number of ci vi l and cr i mi nal l aws. The Bast er s al so had t hei r own

j udges who cont i nued t o f unct i on unt i l Pr ocl amat i on No. 31 of 1924 was

i ssued when t hi s j ur i sdi ct i on was t r ansf er r ed t o t he Magi st r at e' s

Cour t .

Dur i ng t he Ger man col oni al admi ni st r at i on a Tr eat y of Pr ot ect i on and

Fr i endshi p was concl uded bet ween Kapt ei n Her manus van Wyk and the

Ger man Emper or . I n t hi s Treaty " t he r i ght s and f r eedom whi ch have been

acqui r ed by t he Bast ar ds at Rehobot h f or t hemsel ves . . . " wer e

r ecogni zed. However t he German admi ni st r at i on cont i nued t o exer t an

ever i ncr easi ng i nf l uence over t he Bast er gover nment . Gener al l aws wer e

aut omat i cal l y appl i ed t o the Rehobot h Gebi et . Pol i ce st at i ons wer e

opened at var i ous pl aces i n Bast er l and and a Di st r i ct of f i cer was

appoi nt ed f or t he Bast er s.

These i nt er f er ences not wi t hst andi ng, t he Kapt ei n and hi s Counci l

cont i nued t o f unct i on. Thi s was cont i nued af t er t he deat h of Her manus

van Wyk by hi s successor and son Neel s van Wyk.

The Counci l , whi ch consi st ed of ni ne members who, al t hough t hey had t o

be approved by t he German Gover nor , cont i nued t o enact new l aws and to

exer ci se cont r ol over l anded pr oper t y. Budack concl uded t hat t her e was

l i t t l e doubt t hat


14/56

14

t hr oughout t he Ger man col oni al per i od t he Rehobot hers cont i nued wi t h

some f or m of l ocal sel f - gover nment .

Thi s si t uat i on r emai ned unchanged t hroughout t he mi l i t ar y occupat i on

of Sout h West Af r i ca by Uni on f orces ( 1915 - 1919) and wel l i nt o t he

per i od when South Af r i ca became t he mandat ory f or Sout h West Af r i ca.

Af t er l engt hy negot i at i ons bet ween t he Bast ers and t he Uni on

Government a dr af t pr oposal was put bef ore a meet i ng of Bur gers on t he

9t h August , 1923. I t was however r ej ect ed. Thi s r ej ect i on

notwi t hst andi ng, t wo member s of t he Execut i ve Counci l of t he Bast er s

and some member s of t he Vol ksr aad, si gned t he agreement on t he 17t h

August , 1923. Thi s aggr avat ed t he al r eady i nt er nal di ssensi on and

conf l i ct whi ch t hen l ed t o t he f ormi ng of a New Counci l and whi ch

f ur t her l ed t o open r ebel l i on agai nst t he Gover nment i n 1925.

As a r esul t of t he pol i t i cal di ssensi on and conf l i ct s amongst t he

communi t y as wel l as t he commi ssi on of i l l egal act s by an

unconst i t ut i onal l y el ect ed pr ovi si onal Kapt ei n and Vol ksraad,

Procl amat i on No. 31 of 1924 was enact ed whereby al l powers of t he

Kapt ei n, t he cour t s and of f i ci al s appoi nt ed by t he Counci l , wer e

t r ansf er r ed t o the Magi st r at e and hi s Cour t . I n r egar d t o t he ef f ect

of Procl amat i on No. 31 of 1924 on any f or m of sel f - gover nment of t he

Bast ers, Budack poi nts out t hat t he agr eement of 1923 was never

r evoked. A number of i t s provi si ons were onl y suspended by the

Procl amat i on. The New Counci l al so cont i nued t o


15/56

15

f unct i on, al bei t i l l egal l y, and t hey onl y di sappear ed f r om t he scene

dur i ng 1933. By Pr ocl amat i on No. 9 of 1928 a gr adual pr ocess of

r est or i ng some f or m of l ocal gover nment was i nt r oduced by t he

est abl i shment of an Advi sory Counci l consi st i ng of t hr ee el ect ed and

t hree appoi nted members. By Pr ocl amat i on No. 5 of 1935 t he t hree

appoi nt ed member s were f r om t hen on al so t o be el ect ed. The Eur opean

magi st r ate was known by t he t i t l e of Kapt ei n. The pur pose of t he

Counci l was t o advi se t he magi st r at e or Kapt ei n i n r egar d t o i nt er nal

mat t er s, such as l oans and buyi ng of l and amongst ci t i zens. The advi ce

of t he Advi sor y Counci l was al most al ways f ol l owed by the Kapt ei n.

Gr adual l y t he pol i t i cal st r i f e and di ssensi on amongst t he member s of

t he communi t y di sappear ed wi t h t he resul t t hat when an Advi sor y

Counci l was el ect ed on 11t h Apr i l , 1933 i t was t hen agai n representative of

the whol e communi t y. Fr om t hen onwards t he Counci l spoke out , on

numer ous occasi ons, f or t he r est or at i on and r ecogni t i on of t he

t r adi t i onal of f i ce of t he Kapt ei n and compl et e sel f - gover nment f or t he

communi t y.

The f ul l ci r cl e was compl et ed when t he Sout h Af r i can Par l i ament

accept ed and passed Act No. 56 of 1976. Pr i or t o t hat t he Dr af t Bi l l

whi ch became Act No. 56 of 1976 was appr oved by t he Bast er Counci l .

The Act " t o gr ant sel f gover nment i n accor dance wi t h t he Pat er nal Law

of 1872 t o t he i nhabi t ant s of t he Rehobot h gebi et . . . ' ' pr ovi ded f or

t he el ect i on of a Kapt ei n f or a per i od of 5 year s. The Kapt ei n i n t ur n

coul d appoi nt f our member s who f or med t he Cabi net


16/56

16

and who exer ci sed ext ensi ve l egi sl at i ve and execut i ve power s. Laws

promul gat ed by t he Cabi net had t o be appr oved by t he Vol ksr aad

consi st i ng of ni ne members.

A Kapt ei n and Vol ksr aad were el ect ed i n Oct ober , 1977 but , because of

l i t i gat i on concer ni ng t he out come of t he el ect i ons, t he i naugur at i on

of t he Kapt ei n, hi s Counci l and t he member s of t he Vol ksr aad coul d

onl y t ake pl ace on 2 J ul y, 1979. The Kapt ei n so el ect ed was t he Second

Appl i cant who hel d of f i ce unt i l by Procl amat i on A. G. 32 of 1989 t he

power s grant ed by the Act were t r ansf er r ed t o t he Admi ni st r ator -

Gener al i n ant i ci pat i on and pr epar at i on f or t he I ndependence of

Nami bi a whi ch f ol l owed on 21 March, 1990.

Over t he year s var i ous l egi sl at i ve Act s, some of whi ch I have al r eady

r ef er r ed t o, have been enacted whi ch to a more or l esser degr ee

af f ect ed t he pol i t i cal si t uat i on of t he Bast er communi t y. I t i s

necessary, f or pur poses of t hi s case, t o t ake a cl oser l ook at some of

t hese Act s. Pr ocl amat i on 28 of 1923, whi ch gave f orce of l aw t o t he

agr eement ent er ed i nt o bet ween the Admi ni st r at i on of Sout h West Af r i ca

and t he Kapt ei n and Counci l of t he Bast er s, acknowl edged t he r i ght and

t i t l e of t he communi t y i n t he land t hen occupi ed by t hem and

f ur t her mor e al so recogni zed t he ri ght of t he communi t y t o l ocal sel f -

government i n accor dance wi t h t he Pat ernal Laws.

As pr evi ousl y st at ed, pol i t i cal di ssensi on amongst t he member s of t he

communi t y l ed t o t he enact ment of


17/56

17

Procl amat i on No. 31 of 1924 wher eby as f r om 16t h December , 1924:

" . . . and al l per sons act i ng under t he aut hor i t y of such Kapt ei n

and Vol ksraad i n what ever capaci t y shal l cease t o f unct i on wi t hi n

t he t er r i t ory occupi ed by t he Rehobot h Communi t y known as t he

GEBI ET, si t uat e i n t he Di st r i ct of Rehobot h and al l and sever al

t he power s f unct i ons and dut i es vest ed by l aw i n t he Kapt ei n

Counci l of t he Kapt ei n and Vol ksr aad r espect i vel y of t he sai d

Communi t y shal l vest i n t he Magi st r at e of t he Di st r i ct ofRehobot h who shal l exer ci se al l such power s, f unct i ons and dut i es

i n accordance wi t h the l aws of t he sai d Communi t y pr esent i n

f or ce wi t hi n t he Gebi et . . . "

Fur t her mor e i n t er ms of t he Pr ocl amat i on t he Magi st r ate was gi ven

power t o t ake possessi on of al l books, document s, paper s and ef f ect s

of what soever nat ur e i n t he possessi on of or t he pr oper t y of t he

Kapt ei n and Vol ksr aad as wel l as al l money hel d by t hem i n t hei r

of f i ci al capaci t i es. Ther e can be l i t t l e doubt t hat by Pr ocl amat i on 31

of 1924 t he Kapt ei n and Vol ksr aad wer e di vest ed of t hei r cont r ol over

l and per t ai ni ng t o t he Gebi et . Gr adual l y, as was poi nt ed out , t he

si t uat i on was changed wi t h f i r st t he appoi nt ment of an Advi sory Boar d

by Pr ocl amat i on No. 9 of 1928 and t he f ur t her change t her eof , l ater

on, of i t s composi t i on.

Ment i on must al so be made of t he Rehobot h Af f ai r s Pr ocl amat i on, 1939,

Procl amat i on No. 52 of 1939, whi ch pr ovi des t hat t he Rehobot h

Communi t y shal l be ent i t l ed as an associ at i on of per sons t o acqui r e

i mmovabl e pr oper t y i n addi t i on t o t he l and r ecogni zed by Procl amat i on

No. 28 of


18/56

18

1923 and t hat such l and shal l be r egi st er ed i n t he name of t he Kapt ei n

and Raad of t he Communi t y f or and on behal f of t he sai d Communi t y.

Another enactment whi ch i s of i mport ance i s t he Regi st r at i on of Deeds

i n Rehobot h Act , No. 93 of 1976 whi ch pr ovi ded f or t he r egi st r at i on of

deeds i n the Rehobot h Gebi et . Apar t f r om set t i ng up a deeds r egi st r y

i t f ur t her mor e pr ovi ded i n Sect i on 13 ( 2) ( b) ( i ) t hat no t r ansf er of

l and shal l t ake pl ace wi t hout

"a document i ssued by t he of f i ce of t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y

st at i ng t hat t he l egal pr ovi si ons and cust oms appl yi ng t o t he

t r ansf er have been compl i ed wi t h; "

Fur t hermore ref erences t o t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y i n t hi s Act

ar e t o be f ound i n Sect i ons 48, 49 and 52. The si gni f i cance of such

r ef erences i n Act 93 of 1976 seems t o me t o have l ost much of i t s

f or ce, f or t he adj udi cat i on of t hi s par t of t he case, i n t he l i ght of

pr ovi si ons such as Sect i on 23, 25 and 34 of t he Rehoboth Sel f -

Gover nment Act No. 56 of 1976. Such pr ovi si ons of t he Deeds Act can

onl y be l ogi cal l y expl ai ned on t he basi s t hat t he Legi sl at or , when i t

enacted t he Deeds Act , f oresaw t he possi bi l i t y t hat such Act may have

t o operat e bef ore Act 56 of 1976 became l aw and bef ore t he el aborate

machi nery set up by t he Act was i n pl ace.

Bef or e deal i ng wi t h Act No. 56 of 1976 i t i s i n my opi ni on si gni f i cant

t o note t hat when the Admi ni st r ator - Gener al suspended the oper at i on of

t he Act by Pr ocl amat i on A. G. 32


19/56

19

of 1989, t he cont r ol over l and and t r ansact i ons i n r egar d t her et o,

such as l eases, et c. , was al so t aken over by hi m, al so i n r egar d t o

pr oper t y whi ch, i n t er ms of t he Fi r st Appl i cant , was pr oper t y owned by

i t and not t he t hen Gover nment of Rehoboth. Gi ven t he al l egat i on by

Fi r st Appl i cant t hat such l and was pr i vat el y owned, by i t sel f , t hi s

cont r ol by the Admi ni st r at or - Gener al cannot be expl ai ned, and l ess so

t he accept ance t her eof by t he Communi t y.

Act No. 56 of 1976 ( t he Act ) gave wi de powers t o t he Kapt ei n' s Counci l

and t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y of Rehobot h. I n r egar d t o t he i t ems set

out i n t he schedul e t o the Act t he Rehobot h Legi sl at ur e had or i gi nal

l egi sl at i ve power s. I n t hi s r egar d Sect i on 16( 1) pr ovi ded t hat ,

subj ect t o t he pr ovi si ons of t he Act , t he Kapt ei n' s Counci l and

Legi sl at i ve Counci l shal l have t he power

, , ( a) t o make l aws, not i nconsi st ent wi t h t hi s Act i n r espect of

al l mat t er s set out i n t he Schedul e; and

( b) t o pr ovi de i n any such l aws f or an amendment or t he r epeal of

any l aw, i ncl udi ng any Act of Par l i ament and any or di nance of

t he Legi sl at i ve Assembl y of t he ter r i t or y of Sout h West

Af r i ca, i n so f ar as i t r el at es t o any such mat t er s and

appl i es i n Rehoboth or t o any ci t i zen of Rehoboth, whet her

such ci t i zen i s or i s not r esi dent wi t hi n or out si de

Rehobot h, but wi t hi n t he t er r i t or y of Sout h West Af r i ca. "

Sub- sect i on 16( 3) t hen pr ovi ded t hat no Act of Par l i ament or


20/56

20

an enact ment of t he Legi sl at i ve Assembl y of Sout h West Af r i ca, i n so

f ar as i t r el at es t o any of t he mat t er s set out i n t he Schedul e t o t he

Act , shal l appl y to Rehobot h or t o any of i t s ci t i zens. The Schedul e

t o t he Act cont ai ned 52 i t ems of a wi de var i et y.

The Act i t sel f set up everyt hi ng t hat was necessar y f or t he ef f ect i ve

gover nment of t he Rehoboth Gebi et . Sect i ons 2, 3 and 4 est abl i shed the

Kapt ei n' s Counci l , Legi sl at i ve Counci l and Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y and

Sect i on 10 pr ovi ded f or t he el ect i on of t he Kapt ei n and member s of t he

Legi sl at i ve Counci l . Sect i ons 7, 8 and 9 pr ovi ded f or a f l ag, nat i onal

ant hem and t he of f i ci al l anguages of Rehobot h. I n Sect i ons 13, 14 and

15 pr ovi si on was made f or t he t r ansf er of admi ni st r at i ve cont r ol

power s, aut hor i t i es and f unct i ons t o t he Kapt ei n' s Counci l i n whi ch

t he execut i ve government was vest ed i n t erms of Sect i on 12. Sect i on 25

set up t he Rehobot h Revenue Fund and deter mi ned what moneys wer e

payabl e i nt o t he f und and t he cont r ol t her eof . Pr ovi si on f or t he

appr opr i at i on of t he Revenue f und and ot her r el at ed mat t er s was

pr ovi ded f or i n Sect i ons 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Sect i on 32 cont ai ned pr ovi si ons i n r egar d t o t he magi st r at e' s cour t i n

Rehobot h as wel l as t he Bast er hof wher eas Sect i on 33 deal t wi t h

pr i sons i n t er ms of t he Pr i sons Act , Act No. 8 of 1959. I t i s al so of

i mpor t ance t o not e t hat al l of f i cer s and empl oyees of t he Rehobot h

Bast er Communi t y were t r ansf er r ed by Sect i on 13 to t he Gover nment of

Rehobot h i n so f ar as t hey were empl oyed i n connect i on


21/56

21

wi t h mat t er s i n r espect of whi ch t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y of Rehobot h

was empower ed t o make l aws.

As t o t he pur pose of t he Act i t was st at ed t hat i t was

"To gr ant sel f - gover nment i n accor dance wi t h t he Pat er nal Law of

1872 t o t he ci t i zens of t he "Rehobot h Gebi et " wi t hi n t he

t er r i t or y of Sout h West Af r i ca; f or t hat pur pose t o pr ovi de f or

t he est abl i shment of a Kapt ei n' s Counci l and a Legi sl at i ve

Counci l f or t he sai d "Gebi et " ; t o det er mi ne t he power s and

f unct i ons of t he sai d counci l s; and t o pr ovi de f or mat t er s

connect ed t her ewi t h. "

I n t hi s r egard t he Preambl e t o t he Act echoed t he pur pose when i t

st at ed

"Wher eas i t i s t he desi r e of t he ci t i zens of t he ' Rehobot h

Gebi et ' t hat sel f - gover nment wi t hi n t he t er r i t or y of Sout h WestAf r i ca be gr ant ed t o t hem;

And wher eas t he ci t i zens of t he sai d ' Gebi et ' have gr eat r espect

f or t hei r own t r adi t i ons and t he management i nst i t ut i ons of t hei r

ancest or s as embodi ed i n t hei r pater nal l aws;

And wher eas i t i s desi r abl e t o gr ant sel f - gover nment t o t he

peopl e of Rehoboth on the basi s of t he pr oposal s by the Bast er

Advi sory Counci l of Rehoboth and at t he request of t he sai d

peopl e . . . "

Al t hough t her e were var i ous di f f er ences bet ween t he pater nal l aws of

1872 and t he Act , e. g. a Kapt ei n was no l onger chosen f or l i f e, i t

must i n my opi ni on al so be accept ed t hat t he pat ernal l aws f ormed t he

basi s of t he pr oposal s put f orward by t he Bast er Advi sory Counci l of

Rehobot h and


22/56

22

pl ayed a si gni f i cant r ol e i n t he dr af t i ng of t he Act and t he i ssues

deal t wi t h t her ei n.

Taki ng i nt o consi derat i on t he hi st or y of t he Bast er peopl e i t seems

t hat unt i l t he pr omul gat i on of Procl amat i on No. 31 of 1924, wher eby

t he power s of t he Kapt ei n and Vol ksr aad wer e t r ansf er r ed t o the

magi st r at e, t her e was no necessi t y t o di st i ngui sh bet ween t he Kapt ei n

and Vol ksr aad as a pol i t i cal ent i t y on t he one hand and t he r ol e

pl ayed by them i n a ci vi l capaci t y on t he ot her . By Pr ocl amat i on No.

31 of 1924 t hey had t o r el i nqui sh t hei r pol i t i cal r ol e t o t he

magi st r ate. Thi s may have necessi t ated t he pr omul gat i on of

Procl amat i on No. 52 of 1939 wher eby pr ovi si on was made t hat t he

Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y woul d f unct i on as an associ at i on of persons

and t hat l and acqui r ed by i t shal l be r egi st er ed i n t he name of t he

Kapt ei n of t he Communi t y f or and on behal f of t he sai d Communi t y. Thi ssi t uat i on cont i nued unt i l t he pr omul gat i on of t he Act when t he Kapt ei n

and Vol ksr aad were agai n r ei nst ated and coul d agai n t ake up t hei r

pol i t i cal f unct i on.

Agai nst t hi s backgr ound t he Cour t must now l ook at Sect i on 23( 1) . Thi s

sect i on pr ovi ded as f ol l ows:

"23. Transf er of l and and other publ i c pr oper t y t o t he Gover nment of

Rehobot h -

( 1) Fr om t he dat e of commencement of t hi s Act t he ownershi p and

cont r ol of al l movabl e and i mmovabl e pr oper t y i n Rehobot h the

owner shi p or cont r ol of whi ch i s on t hat dat e vest ed i n t he

Gover nment of t he Republ i c or t he admi ni st r at i on of t he

t er r i t or y of Sout h West Af r i ca or t he Rehobot h


23/56

23

Bast er Communi t y and whi ch rel at es t o mat t er s i n respect of whi ch

t he Legi sl at i ve Author i t y of Rehobot h i s empowered t o make l aws,

shal l vest i n t he Gover nment of Rehoboth. "

( my under l i ni ng. )

Not sur pr i si ngl y t he par t i es di f f er ed vehement l y as to t he meani ng

whi ch t he Cour t shoul d gi ve mor e par t i cul ar l y t o t he wor ds " whi ch

r el at es t o mat t er s" as used i n t he sect i on. The Fi r st Appl i cant opt ed

f or a r estr i ct i ve i nt er pr et at i on on t he basi s, i nt er al i a, t hat

Sect i on 23 t ook away r i ght s and shoul d t her ef ore, on general

i nt er pr et at i on pr i nci pl es, be l i mi t ed as f ar as possi bl e. Fi r st

Respondent on t he ot her hand submi t t ed that t he word "r el ates" i s of

wi de i mpor t whi ch was i n no way r est r i ct ed by t he sect i on or t he

cont ext of t he Act and whi ch was i nt ended t o vest ownershi p of such

proper t y i n t he Gover nment of Rehobot h.

The obvi ous poi nt t o st ar t wi t h seems t o me t o deter mi ne t he meani ng

of t he wor d "r el at e" i n t he cont ext i n whi ch i t i s used i n t he sect i on

and t he cont ext i n whi ch i t i s used i n t he Act i t sel f . As was

cor r ect l y poi nt ed out by Mr Gaunt l et t t he expr essi on "whi ch r el at es t o

mat t er s" was al so used i n var i ous ot her sect i ons such as Sect i on 13,

15 and 16 ( 1) ( b) and unl ess a cont r ar y i nt ent i on i s cl ear t he use of

t he same wor ds i n di f f er ent sect i ons of t he Act l eads t o the

pr esumpt i on t hat i t was i nt ended t o convey t he same meani ng. ( See

Schwi kkar d v Li quor Li censi ng Boar d f or Ar ea 32, 1970( 4) S. A. 222 ( D)

. ) Some ar gument cent r ed on t he quest i on whet her t he words "whi ch

r el at es" r ef er r ed t o t he wor ds owner shi p or cont r ol or whet her t hey

r ef er r ed t o t he wor d pr oper t y. I n my opi ni on t hi s wi l l make no

mater i al


24/56

24

di f f er ence whet her i t i s t he owner shi p or cont r ol t hat r el at es t o

mat t er s i n r espect of whi ch t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hori t y i s empower ed t o

make l aws or whet her i t i s t he pr oper t y. I t seems t o me t hat whi chever

const r ucti on i s i nt ended i t wi l l not r eal l y af f ect t he i nt er pr et at i on

of t he Sect i on. Fur t her mor e i t i s common cause that al l t he par t i cul ar

pr oper t i es f or mi ng t he subj ect of t hi s appl i cat i on wer e, i mmedi at el y

pr i or t o t he commencement of t he Act , t he pr opert y of t he Rehobot h

Bast er Communi t y. I t f ol l ows t her ef or e t hat i f t he Cour t shoul d come

t o t he concl usi on t hat Sect i on 23( 1) ef f ect i vel y vest ed owner shi p of

t hese pr oper t i es i n t he Gover nment of Rehoboth t he i ssue of cont r ol i n

t er ms of t he sect i on, and t he ef f ect t her eof , f al l s away.

I n t he Shor t er Oxf or d Engl i sh Di ct i onar y ( 3r d edi t i on, 1990 r epr . ) Vol

I I , p. 1786 t he f ol l owi ng meani ngs are ascr i bed t o t he wor d " r el at e" ,

namel y:

" t o connect , est abl i sh a r el at i on bet ween; l ogi c. One of t wo

obj ect s of t hought bet ween whi ch a rel at i on subsi st s; t o be

r el at ed, have r el at i on, st and i n some r el at i on, t o anot her t hi ng"

The use of t he wor ds i n r el at i on t o or r el at i ng t o i n ot her

l egi sl at i ve Act s show, f r om a di scussi on t her eof i n var i ous cases,

" t hat i t i s suscept i bl e of a wi de meani ng" . See i n t hi s r egar d R v

Chi mbuvu 1960( 1) S. A. 205 ( S. R. ) at 207 F - G; Uni t ed Domi ni ons

Cor por at i on ( S. A. ) Lt d. v Tyr er , 1960 ( 3) S. A. 321 ( T. P. D. ) at 323 A;

Shal om I nvest ment s ( Pt y) Lt d. v Dan Ri ver Mi l l s I nc. 1971 ( 1) S. A. 689

( A. D. ) at 704


25/56

25

H and Mi el e et Ci e GmbH & Co v Eur o El ect r i cal ( Pt y) Lt d, 1988 ( 2)

S. A. 583 ( A. D. ) at 599 H - I . The wi de meani ng of t he words i s of

cour se subj ect t o t he cont ext i n whi ch t hey ar e used and t he obj ect of

t he l egi sl at i on, and as such t hey can al so be const r ued nar r owl y. I

agr ee wi t h what was sai d by CORBETT, J . A. ( as he t hen was) , i n the

Mi el e- case, supr a, namel y t hat any at t empt t o def i ne t he meani ng of

t he wor ds " i n r el at i on t o" mor e cl osel y woul d be bot h di f f i cul t and

i mpr udent ( p. 599 I ) . See al so Mak Medi t err anee SARL v The Fund

Const i t ut i ng t he Pr oceeds of t he J udi ci al Sal e of M. C. Thunder , 1994

( 3) S. A. 599 at 606 E.

I n t he cont ext i n whi ch t he wor ds, "whi ch r el at es t o" , wer e used i n

t he sect i on I coul d f i nd no i ndi cat i on whi ch poi nt s away f r om t he

or di nar y wi de meani ng of t he words. Thi s, i n my opi ni on, i s f ur t her

f or t i f i ed by t he use of t he same wor ds i n other sect i ons namel y 13, 15and 16 ( 1) ( b) of t he Act , wher e agai n t her e was no i ndi cat i on t hat a

nar r ow or st r i ct const r uct i on was i nt ended. See especi al l y Sect i on

16( 1) ( b) whi ch ci r cumscr i bes t he l egi sl at i ve power s of t he gover ni ng

aut hor i t i es of t he Rehobot h Gebi et , and whi ch must , t o serve i t s

pur pose as a const i t ut i onal document , be gi ven a wi de and l i beral

meani ng. Thi s i s so i f r egar d i s had t o the obj ect and pur pose of t he

Act , namel y t o gi ve t he powers of sel f - government t o t he communi t y on

t he basi s of t he Pat er nal Laws of 1872. Thi s i s al so evi dent f r om t he

wi de power s set out i n t hi s sect i on wher eby, i n r egard t o t hose

mat t er s whi ch r el at e, t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y was gi ven t he power t o

r epeal or amend any Act of Par l i ament or or di nance of t he Legi sl at i ve

Assembl y of Sout h West Af r i ca.


26/56

26

Ther ef or e al so i n t he cont ext of t he ot her sect i ons i n t he Act i n

whi ch t he same wor ds wer e used and i n t he Act i t sel f , t her e i s no

i ndi cat i on t hat t he Legi sl at ur e i nt ended t hat t hese wor ds used i n

Sect i on 23( 1) shoul d be narr owl y const r ued or be const r ued

di f f erent l y.

Mr de Br uyn submi t t ed because t he Act i s a const i t ut i onal i nst r ument

and because Sect i on 23 t akes away r i ght s, t he Cour t shoul d const r ue

t he sect i on nar r owl y so as t o pr eser ve and pr ot ect t hose r i ght s. I n

t hi s r egar d, and because of t he r ef er ence t o " l and and ot her publ i c

pr oper t i es" i n t he head not e t o Sect i on 23, Counsel submi t t ed t hat t he

Cour t shoul d dr aw a di st i nct i on bet ween publ i c pr oper t y whi ch i s used

f or government al pur poses and pr opert y whi ch i s used f or commerci al

pur poses. I t was t hen submi t t ed t hat Sect i on 23 onl y i nt ended t o vest

owner shi p of proper t y i n t he Gover nment of Rehobot h whi ch was used i n

t he f or mer capaci t y, i . e. f or gover nment al pur poses.

Apar t f r om t he f act t hat I f i nd i t di f f i cul t t o r ead such a meani ng

i nt o Sect i on 23 of t he Act I do not agr ee wi t h Mr de Br uyn t hat

Sect i on 23 was i nt ended t o t ake away r i ght s. As was submi t t ed by Mr

Gaunt l et t , and as pr evi ousl y set out by me, t he pur pose of t he Act was

t o gr ant sel f - gover nment t o t he peopl e of Rehoboth. Thi s was done on

t he basi s of pr oposal s by t he Bast er Advi sory Counci l of Rehoboth,

whi ch, pr i or t o 1976, served as a br oadl y repr esent at i ve body of t he

Communi t y. These f unct i ons and t hose of t he magi st r at e were t o be

t aken over by t he new Gover nment of Rehobot h. I f ur t her agr ee wi t h Mr

Gaunt l et t t hat i n r el at i on t o mat t er s


27/56

27

f al l i ng wi t hi n t he ambi t of sel f - gover nment i t was t he i nt ent i on t hat

t he t hr ee bodi es speci f i ed i n Sect i on 23, woul d, gener al l y speaki ng,

f ade f r om t he const i t ut i onal scene and be r epl aced by t he new

Gover nment .

I t i s an hi st or i cal f act t hat mat t er s per t ai ni ng t o l and wer e al ways

cont r ol l ed by t he Kapt ei n and Counci l . ( See Budack and t he ar t i cl e by

P. A. L. van der Heuwel "The sur vey and t enur e of l and i n Rehobot h,

Sout h West Af r i ca 1870 - 1984" publ i shed i n the S. A. Sur vey J our nal ,

Apr i l , 1985. ) Then by Pr ocl amat i on No. 31 of 1924 t he f unct i ons of t he

Kapt ei n and Counci l were taken over by t he magi st r at e who al so t ook

over al l cont r ol and i ssues i n r egar d t o l and. The power s vest ed i n

t he magi st r ate by Pr ocl amat i on 31 of 1924 coul d and di d not vest

owner shi p i n hi m, but onl y cont r ol . By t he Act owner shi p was vest ed i n

t he Government of Rehobot h and t he agr eed f act s set out i n t he var i ous

agr eement s and Rul e 37 mi nut es demonst r at e the f ul l and excl usi ve

cont r ol over t he l and exer ci sed by the Rehoboth Gover nment . Thi s i s t o

an ext ent suppor t ed by Procl amat i on A. G. 32 of 1989 when t he powers of

t he Rehobot h Government were t r ansf er r ed to t he Admi ni st r at or - General

and he t hen exer ci sed cont r ol over t he l and whi ch now f orms t he

subj ect mat t er of t hi s appl i cat i on. Thi s i n my opi ni on i s at l east an

i ndi cat i on t hat at t hat st age t he l and was r egar ded by al l as t he

proper t y of t he Rehobot h Gover nment .

As was submi t t ed by Mr Gaunt l et t , as f ar as t he S. A. Government and

S. W. A. Admi ni st r at i on was concer ned, Sect i on 23 was t he vehi cl e

wher eby a pr o tant o f or m of st at e


28/56

28

success i on was achi eved whi ch al l owed t he Rehobot h Gover nment t o

pur sue t he obj ect s of sel f - gover nment wi t h no evi dent anomal y f or

ei t her government s or , f or t hat mat t er , t he Rehobot h Government .

Li kewi se, f or t he Communi t y i t sel f , t her e exi st ed no anomal y because

wher e l and i t owned or cont r ol l ed r el at ed t o a schedul ed mat t er , t hi s

woul d now vest i n i t s own gover nment . Land owned or cont r ol l ed by

i ndi vi dual Rehobot h r esi dent s i n t hei r pr i vat e capaci t i es, woul d not

be af f ect ed. The onl y l i mi t at i on set out i n t he sect i on was t hat t he

ownershi p or cont r ol must have been vest ed i n one of t he t hr ee

speci f i ed bodi es at t he commencement of t he Act and must have rel at ed

t o one or more of t he mat t ers set out i n t he Schedul e.

A f ur t her i ndi ci a whi ch i n my opi ni on al so suppor t s t he wi de meani ng

of Sect i on 23 cont ended f or by counsel f or t he Fi r st Respondent i s

Sect i on 25 of t he Act . The r el evant par t pr ovi des as f ol l ows:

25 ( 1) There shal l be a Rehobot h Revenue Fund, i nt o whi ch

shal l be pai d al l r evenue r ai sed by or accrui ng t o the

Gover nment of Rehobot h.

( 2) As f r om a dat e det er mi ned by t he Mi ni st er t her e shal l

be pai d i nt o t he Rehobot h Revenue Fund -

( a) al l moneys payabl e -

( i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( i i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( i i i ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( i v) i n t er ms of any pr ovi si on r esol ut i on or pr act i ce,

t o t he f und of t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y, and al l

moneys


29/56

29

st andi ng t o t he cr edi t of t hat f und; "

By Sect i on 25 t he Act ef f ect i vel y and compl et el y agai n vest ed the

Kapt ei n and Counci l wi t h al l t he power s t hey pr evi ousl y had. Fi r st of

al l , by Sect i on 13, al l per sonnel of t he Communi t y, i n so f ar as t hey

wer e empl oyed i n r el at i on t o mat t er s i n r espect of whi ch t he Rehoboth

Gover nment were empowered t o make l aws, were t r ansf er r ed to t he

Gover nment . Secondl y t he owner shi p of al l l and whi ch pr evi ousl y vest ed

i n t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y now vest ed i n t he Rehobot h Government

i n t er ms of t he pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 23 and i n so f ar as t hat l and

r el at ed t o mat t er s i n r egard t o whi ch the Rehobot h Gover nment was

empowered t o make l aws. Last l y, by Sect i on 25 of t he Act , al l moneys

payabl e to t he Rehoboth Bast er Communi t y and al l f unds t o i t s cr edi t

were t o be pai d i nto t he Rehobot h Revenue Fund whi ch "shal l be

appr opr i at ed by the Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y of Rehobot h f or t headmi ni st r at i on of Rehobot h gener al l y . . . ( Sect i on 26. )

The wor ds used i n t hese sect i ons ar e gener al l y wi de and, t aki ng i nt o

consi der at i on al l t he i ndi ci ae t o whi ch I have r ef er r ed, i t was

i nt ended t o be of wi de i mport t o meet t he obj ect and pur pose of t he

Act as pr evi ousl y set out .

I n al l t he ci r cumst ances I cannot accept t he nar r ow const r uct i on of

Sect i on 23 as cont ended f or by Counsel f or t he Fi r st Appl i cant .

Deal i ng wi t h a speci f i c l egi sl at i ve enact ment such as Sect i on 23,

cases such as Rondebosch Muni ci pal Counci l v Tr ust ees of t he West er n

Pr ovi nce Agr i cul t ur al Soci et y, 1911 AD 271, r ef er r ed t o by Counsel


30/56

30

f or t he Fi rst Appl i cant , are of l i t t l e hel p.

I n t hat par t i cul ar case t he Cour t had t o i nt er pr et Sect i on 115 of Act

45 of 1882. The appel l ant , who was a vol unt ar y associ at i on, occupi ed

l and wi t hi n t he Muni ci pal i t y of Rondebosch and t he quest i on was

whether t hey wer e i n t erms of Sect i on 115 exempt ed f r om payi ng r at es.

I t was cont ended t hat t hey were a publ i c body who used t he l and f or

publ i c pur poses. The Cour t r ej ect ed the cont ent i on and per Lor d de

Vi l l i er s, C. J . , f ound on p. 281 of t he r epor t t hat t o qual i f y f or

publ i c pur poses " t he l and must be used f or t he exer ci se of such

f unct i ons of t he Gover nment as t he Government may const i t ut i onal l y

del egat e t o t he per son or publ i c body. "

Ther e i s i n my opi ni on no compar i son between Sect i on 23 on t he one

hand and Sect i on 115 on t he other hand. I n t he l at t er pr ovi si on t heCour t was cal l ed upon t o determi ne what i s t he meani ng of l and used

f or publ i c pur poses i n t er ms of t he pr ovi si ons of Act 45 of 1882. That

i s not what t he Cour t i s cal l ed upon t o det er mi ne i n r egar d t o Sect i on

23. The Cour t i s not cal l ed upon t o det er mi ne what i s or i s not publ i c

l and. I n t er ms of Sect i on 23 al l movabl e and i mmovabl e pr opert y i n

Rehobot h, t he ownershi p of whi ch vest ed i n the Rehobot h Bast er

Communi t y at a speci f i c dat e shal l vest i n t he Rehobot h Government i n

so f ar as t hat owner shi p or pr oper t y rel at es t o mat t er s i n r espect of

whi ch t he Government was empowered t o make l aws. There i s, i n t he

i nst ance of Sect i on 23, i n my opi ni on no basi s t o l i mi t t he t r ansf er

of such l and t o l and whi ch was owned by t he


31/56

31

Communi t y f or publ i c pur poses. The use of t he word al l , bef ore movabl e

and i mmovabl e pr oper t y, makes t hat abundant l y cl ear . To l i mi t t he wi de

meani ng of Sect i on 23 i n t he way whi ch was cont ended f or wi l l mean not

onl y, t hat t he Cour t wi l l have t o r ead wor ds i nt o t he sect i on, whi ch

i n my opi ni on i s i n t he ci r cumst ances i mper mi ssi bl e, but t hat t he

Cour t wi l l have t o gi ve t o Sect i on 23 a meani ng whi ch i s di r ect l y i n

conf l i ct wi t h t he wi de meani ng of t he wor ds used i n t he sect i on i t sel f

and t he ot her i ndi ci ae t o whi ch I have al r eady ref er r ed.

I t i s now necessary to det er mi ne whet her t he pr opert i es f ormi ng par t

of Fi r st Appl i cant ' s appl i cat i on r el at e t o t he mat t er s set out i n t he

Schedul e. To t hi s ext ent t he summar y of Common Cause Fact s as wel l as

t he var i ous Rul e 37 mi nut es cont ai ni ng i nt er al i a admi ssi ons, t he

Kapt ei n' s Resol ut i ons and Budget Schedul e, ar e r el evant . Bef or e

deal i ng wi t h t he i ndi vi dual pr oper t i es i t can be st at ed i n gener alt hat i n r egar d t o most , i f not al l of t he sai d pr oper t i es, t hat t hey

wer e pr edomi nant l y used f or l i vest ock gr azi ng and f armi ng.

For pur poses hereof i t i s necessar y to quot e t he summary of

Common Cause Fact s. Thi s document provi des as f ol l ows:

1. Thi s Summary of Common Cause Fact s i s prepared as a r esul t of

t he ext ended pr et r i al pr oceedi ngs i n t hi s mat t er . I t i s

i nt ended t o ser ve as a cumul at i ve summary; t he par t i es are

however by agr eement ent i t l ed t o ref er t o the pr ecedi ng pr e-

t r i al mi nut es ( at t ached and marked "A") i n cl ar i f i cat i on or

ampl i f i cat i on of any aspect , shoul d t hey consi der t hi s

necessary or expedi ent .


32/56

32

2. I t i s not t he i nt ent i on of t he par t i es t o adduce f ur t her

oral evi dence out si de t he ambi t of t hi s summary and the

pr ecedi ng pr e- t r i al mi nut es, subj ect t o 3 bel ow.

3. The part i es are agr eed t hat t he at t ached pl an, marked "B" ,

i s t o be r ecei ved by t he cour t as evi dence, wi t hout

r equi r i ng f ur t her pr oof .

4. I t i s r ecor ded t hat i t i s common cause t hat t he pr oper t i es

concer ned ( and deal t wi t h bel ow) were owned as at t he

r el evant dat e ( bei ng 10 December 1976, t he dat e upon whi ch

t he Rehobot h Sel f Gover nment Act 46 of 1976 came i nt o

operat i on) by t he Rehobot h Bast er Gemeent e bei ng r egi st ered

ei t her under t hat name or t hat of t he Kapt ei n and Raad f or

and on behal f of t he Rehobot h Bast er Gemeent e.

5. I t i s f ur t her common cause t hat pur suant t o t he pr ovi si ons

of Sect i on 25( 2) of t he Rehoboth Sel f - Gover nment Act , 1

Apr i l 1978 was det ermi ned as t he dat e on whi ch t he amount s

of money ref er r ed t o i n t hat subsect i on wer e t o be pai d i nt o

t he Rehobot h Revenue Fund.

6. The par t i es are agr eed, r egar d bei ng had t o t he i ssue

r ef er r ed t o or al evi dence by t hi s cour t , t hat t he uses t o

whi ch t he pr oper t i es i n di sput e wer e appl i ed as at 10

December 1976 wer e as f ol l ows:

6. 1 Rehoboth Townlands No. 302: Size + 56 962,7 Ha

( a) At t he out set , i t i s r ecor ded t hat Rehobot h

Townl ands East No. 301 exi st ed under separ at e t i t l e

f r om Rehobot h Townl ands no. 302 f r om


33/56

33

1944. I t i s f ur t her common cause t hat Rehobot h

Townl ands No. 302 was i t sel f however not subdi vi ded

i nt o por t i on 1, por t i on 2 and t he remai nder t her eof ,

pr i or t o t he r el evant dat e ( 10 December 1976) . I t i s

f ur t her common cause t hat t he gener al sur vey conduct ed

i n r espect of t hi s pr oper t y was i t sel f not compl et ed by

t he rel evant dat e. I t i s al so common cause t hat Er f No.

212 was r egi st er ed under separ at e t i t l e f r om 1958 i n

t he name of t he Government of t he Ter r i t ory of Sout h

West Af r i ca, and t hat i t was st i l l so r egi st er ed as at

t he r el evant dat e. The st at us of er f 212 i n t hese

pr oceedi ngs i s deal t wi t h i n par agr aph 8 bel ow.

( b) For pur poses of conveni ence, t hi s pr oper t y wi l l be

deal t wi t h under t wo headi ngs, namel y t he Town Ar ea and

t he Far m Ar ea. The l at t er compr i sed t he whol e of t he

pr oper t y save f or t he Town Ar ea as descr i bed bel ow.

( c) Farm Area

I t i s a common cause t hat t he Farm Ar ea was used f or

gr azi ng and l i vest ock f ar mi ng. The Magi st r at e i n hi s

capaci t y as Kapt ei n and Raad of t he Rehobot h Bast er

Communi t y entered i nto a subst ant i al number of

agr eement s of l ease wi t h var i ous per sons as l essees.

Many of t he l eases


34/56

34

cont ai ned condi t i ons r el at i ng t o the number of st ock t o

be kept on t he l and and t he use and the pr ovi si on of

i mprovement s on t he pr opert i es concerned ( such as

f ences and wat er i nst al l at i ons) . Per mi ssi on was gr ant ed

t o l essees t o dr i l l bor ehol es and/ or di g wel l s, or t o

erect f ences ( as r egards whi ch compensat i on was pai d t o

t he r el evant l essee) , and per mi ssi on was gr ant ed i n

cer t ai n i nst ances f or t he cut t i ng of t r ees and t he use

t her eof as f enci ng pol es.

I t was al so pr ovi ded t hat t he r ent payabl e by l essees

was t o be pai d i nt o t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y Fund.

I nspect i ons wer e car r i ed out by of f i ci al s t o ascer t ai n

t he number of st ock on l eased l and. I n cer t ai n

i nst ances t he Magi st r ate gr ant ed per mi ssi on f or hunt i ng

on t he l and concer ned and f or t he subl et t i ng t her eof .

Thi s ar ea was di vi ded i nt o camps ( as descr i bed by t he

deponent Pl at t at Record 659, paragr aph 7) .

( d) Town Area

Thi s compr i sed a bui l t - up ar ea and some open l and i n

t he i mmedi at e vi ci ni t y t her eof used pr i mar i l y f or

col l ect i ve gr azi ng and i nf or mal l i vest ock f ar mi ng

pur poses. Thi s par t was cont r ol l ed by t he Magi st r at e i n


35/56

35

hi s af or esai d capaci t y and ent ai l ed an admi ni st r at i on

by hi m i n t he cour se of whi ch ser vi ces of t he ki nd

or di nar i l y r ender ed i n r espect of t ownshi ps

admi ni st r at i on, such as sani t at i on, wat er and st r eet s

wer e pr ovi ded and r egul at ed. Thi s i ncl uded t he pur chase

and cont r ol of vehi cl es and ot her equi pment and t he

empl oyment of of f i ci al s f or such pur poses. I n t hi s

r egar d, budget s wer e appr oved annual l y r el at i ng t o

i t ems set out i n t he at t ached schedul e marked C.

The par t i es ar e i n agr eement t hat on t he r el evant dat e,at l east , t he pl aces ment i oned i n par agr aph 15. 5( a) -

( p) ( excl udi ng ( h) and ( o) ) of St el l macher ' s af f i davi t

wer e on t hi s proper t y. I n addi t i on i t i s common cause

t hat t he pl aces ment i oned i n' par agr aph 15. 4 ( a) - ( f )

and ( i ) - ( j ) of St el l macher ' s af f i davi t wer e on t he

pr oper t y known as Er f 212. No separ at e l and t i t l es

exi st ed i n r el at i on t o such pl aces.

The hal l r ef er r ed t o i n par agr aph 15. 5( k) of

St el l macher ' s af f i davi t was known as t he Her manus Van

Wyk Memor i al Hal l and was admi ni st ered and cont r ol l ed

at t he r el evant dat e by t he Magi st r at e i n hi s af or esai d

capaci t y af t er consul t at i on wi t h t he Bast er Advi sor y

Counci l .


36/56

36

6. 2 Rehoboth Townlands East No. 301: Size 1230,3 Ha

I t i s common cause t hat as at t he r el evant dat e, t hi s

pr oper t y was put t o t he same use as t hat descr i bed i n

r el at i on t o t he Farm Ar ea of Rehoboth Townl ands No. 302

and t hat ever ythi ng st at ed i n par agr aph 6. 1 ( c) supr a

appl i es mut at i s mut andi s i n r el at i on t o t hi s pr oper t y

( excl udi ng t he l ast par agr aph t her eof and t he exi st ence

of camps) . The part i es are f ur t her i n agr eement t hat a

school was si t uat ed on t hi s pr oper t y. I t i s commoncause t hat t he t eacher s were pai d and educat i onal

mat t er s cont r ol l ed by t he Gover nment of Sout h Af r i ca.

6. 3 Groot Aub: Size 8597,3 Ha

I t i s agr eed t hat t hi s pr oper t y was used f or t he same

pur pose as descr i bed i n r el at i on t o t he Far m Lands of

Rehobot h Townl ands No. 302 and t hat everyt hi ng st at edi n paragr aph 6. 1 ( c) supr a appl i es mut at i s mut andi s i n

r el at i on t o t hi s pr oper t y ( excl udi ng t he l ast par agr aph

t her eof and t he exi st ence of f ences t her eon) . I t i s

f ur t her agr eed t hat t her e was a school on t he pr oper t y,

t he admi ni st r at i on and cont r ol of t he school pr oper t y

was exer ci sed by t he Magi st r at e i n hi s af or esai d

capaci t y. I t i s common cause t hat t he teacher s wer e

pai d and al l


37/56

37

educat i onal mat t ers were cont r ol l ed by t he Government

of Sout h Af r i ca. I t i s f ur t her common cause t hat a

f or eman col l ect ed r ent al s owi ng by l essees i n r espect

of t hei r af or esai d use of t he pr oper t y f or gr azi ng and

l i vest ock f ar mi ng, and t hat such r ent al s wer e pai d i nt o

t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y Fund.

6. 4 Nauaspoort: Size 8404,3 Ha

I t was common cause bet ween the par t i es t hat t he

pr oper t y was appl i ed t o t he same use, as descr i bed wi t h

r egard t o Rehobot h Townl ands No. 302 above and t hat

ever yt hi ng st at ed i n par agr aph 6. 1 ( c) supr a appl i es

mut at i s mut andi s i n r el at i on t o t hi s pr oper t y

( excl udi ng t he l ast par agr aph t her eof and t he exi st ence

of f ences t her eon) .

6. 5 Quises: Size 6617,3 Ha

I t i s common cause t hat t hi s proper t y was appl i ed to

t he same use as descr i bed i n connect i on wi t h Rehobot h

Townl ands No. 302 above and t hat everyt hi ng st at ed i n

par agr aph 6. 1 ( c) supr a appl i es mut at i s mut andi s i n

r el at i on t o t hi s pr oper t y ( excl udi ng t he l ast par agr aph

t her eof and t he car r yi ng out of i nspect i ons) .

6. 6 Sandputs: Size 8872 Ha


38/56

38

I t i s common cause bet ween t he part i es t hat t hi s

pr oper t y was appl i ed t o t he same use as t hat

descr i bed i n connect i on wi t h Rehobot h Townl ands No.

302 as descr i bed above and t hat ever yt hi ng st ated

i n par agr aph 6. 1 ( c) supr a appl i es mut at i s mut andi s

i n r el at i on t o t hi s pr oper t y ( excl udi ng t he l ast

par agr aph t her eof ) .

Ref er ences her ei n wi l l al so be made t o the Kapt ei n' s Resol ut i ons and

t he Budget Schedul e. However because of t he vol umi nousness of t hese

document s i t wi l l be i mpr act i cal t o set t hem out i n t hi s j udgment .

Taki ng i nt o consi derat i on t he use whi ch was made of t he af f ect ed

pr oper t i es on t he r el evant dat e, I am of t he opi ni on t hat each and

ever yone of t hese pr oper t i es r el at ed t o mat t er s set out i n t he

Schedul e t o t he Act and have consequent l y, i n t erms of t he pr ovi si ons

of Sect i on 23 of t he Act , vest ed ownershi p i n t he Government of

Rehobot h. I wi l l deal wi t h t he pr oper t i es i ndi vi dual l y.

1. Townl ands 302:

The ownershi p of t hi s pr oper t y r el at es t o t he f ol l owi ng

i t ems set out i n t he Schedul e:

( i ) I t em 3; "Cont r ol over t he r esi dence and set t l ement

of per sons i n Rehoboth who ar e not ci t i zens of

Rehobot h"; ( See Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )


39/56

39

( i i ) I t em 5; "The est abl i shment and cont r ol of muni ci pal

i nst i t ut i ons and ot her l ocal aut hor i t i es, and t hepl anni ng and est abl i shment of t ownshi ps i n Rehobot h. "

( Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )

( i i i ) I t em 21; "Agr i cul t ur e, i ncl udi ng soi l and vel d conser vat i on,

st ock i mpr ovement , devel opment , cont r ol , mai nt enance

and conservat i on of wat er suppl i es and water sour ces,

pr event i on of soi l er osi on, i r r i gat i on, cont r ol and

conser vat i on of exot i c and i ndi genous f or est s and

t r ees, combat i ng of vel d f i r es, br and mar ks and st ock

and vet er i nar y ser vi ces i n Rehobot h . . . " ( Summar y. )

( i v) I t em 24; "Subj ect t o t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s Act , t he pur chase,

sal e, hypot hecat i on and al i enat i on of l and i n

Rehoboth. " ( Budget s. )

( v) I t em 26; "Mat t er s r el at i ng t o l and and l and set t l ement i n

Rehobot h. " ( Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )

( vi ) I t em 29; "Al l heal t h mat t er s i n Rehobot h, i ncl udi ng t he

management and cont r ol of cl i ni cs and t he cont r ol ,

appoi nt ment and dut i es of di st r i ct sur geons . . . "

( Budget s. )

( vi i ) I t em 30; "Al l educat i onal mat t er s, i ncl udi ng pr i mar y, hi gher ,

adul t , agr i cul t ur al and t echni cal educat i on i n

Rehobot h. " ( Summar y. )

( vi i i ) I t em 32; "Housi ng, i ncl udi ng economi c and sub economi c housi ng

schemes i n Rehobot h. " ( Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons and

Budget s. )


40/56

40

( i x) I t em 45; "The r est r i ct i on, r egul at i on and cont r ol of hor ser aci ng

and other r aci ng and of bet t i ng and wager i ng i n

Rehobot h. " ( Summar y. )

( x) I t em 48; "The est abl i shment , cont r ol , management and r egul at i on of

cemet er i es and cr emator i a and t he regul at i on of mat t er s

r el at i ng t o the removal and di sposal of dead bodi es i n

Rehoboth. " ( Summary and Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )

2. Townl ands East 301:

The ownershi p of t hi s pr oper t y r el at ed t o t he f ol l owi ng i t ems set out

i n t he Schedul e:

( i ) I t em 14; "The col l ect i on of and cont r ol over al l r evenue. "

( Summary and Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )

( i i ) I t em 21; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y. )

( i i i ) I t em 22; "Fi sh and game pr eser vat i on i n Rehobot h. "

( Summar y. )

( i v) I t em 26; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons and

Summar y. )

( v) I t em 30; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y. )

( vi ) I t em 42; "The conser vat i on of f l or a and f auna and t he

dest r uct i on of ver mi n i n Rehobot h. " ( Summary. )

3. Gr oot Aub:

The ownershi p of t hi s pr oper t y r el at ed t o t he f ol l owi ng i t ems set out

i n t he Schedul e:


41/56

41

( i ) I t em 4; "The cont r ol and l i censi ng of t r adi ng and busi ness

i n Rehobot h. " ( Summar y and Budget s. )

( i i ) I t em 14; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y and Budget s. )

( i i i ) I t em 21; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y. )

( i v) I t em 22; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y. )

( v) I t em 24; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )

( vi ) I t em 26; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons. )

( vi i ) I t em 30; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y. )

( i x) I t em 42; As pr evi ousl y set out . ( Summar y. )

3. Kanaspoor t , Oui ses and Sandput s:

The ownershi p of t hese propert i es r el at ed t o t he f ol l owi ng i t ems set

out i n t he Schedul e:

I t ems 14, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 42 al l set out pr evi ousl y. ( See the

Summary, Kapt ei n' s r esol ut i ons and Budget . )

Bef or e I exami ne t he ef f ect of Schedul e 5 of t he Const i t ut i on i n

r egar d t o t hese pr oper t i es t her e ar e f ur t her submi ssi ons and

al t er nat i ve argument s r ai sed by Mr De Br uyn i n r egard t heret o wi t h

whi ch I have t o deal .


42/56

42

Wi t h ref erence t o t he pr oper t y Townl ands 302 Mr de Br uyn, on t he

st r engt h of t he case of Mabo and Ot hers v The St at e of Queensl and

( 1992) 175 CLR 1, submi t t ed t hat t he f act t hat some part of t he

pr oper t y rel at ed t o the mat t er s set out i n t he Schedul e, i t does not

f ol l ow t hat t he whol e pr oper t y so rel at es. However t he evi dence i s

t hat t he f ar m ar ea was used f or grazi ng and l i vest ock f ar mi ng and as

such r el at ed t o i t ems such as I t em 21. See al so I t em 37.

I n t he al t er nat i ve i t was submi t t ed t hat i f t he owner shi p of t hese

proper t i es vest ed i n t he Gover nment of Rehobot h such owner shi p was of

a f i duci ary nat ur e and was hel d by t he Government f or and on behal f of

t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y. Because t he pr opert y now vest s i n Fi r st

Respondent i t i s t ant amount t o an expr opr i at i on and t he Fi r st

Appl i cant i s t her ef or e ent i t l ed t o compensat i on i n t er ms of Ar t i cl e

16( 2) of t he Const i t ut i on.

To pl ace such a const r uct i on on Sect i on 23 wi l l agai n mean t hat wor ds

wi l l have t o be r ead i nt o t he sect i on. The sect i on i s cl ear , i t i s

ownershi p whi ch vest s i n the Government of Rehobot h i n regard t o t hose

pr oper t i es whi ch r el at e t o the mat t er s set out i n t he Schedul e t o the

Act . Owner shi p cannot i n my opi ni on be equated wi t h a f orm of

t r ust eeshi p wher e t he t r ust ee hol ds on behal f of a t hi r d par t y. The

dut y pl aced upon t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y of Rehobot h by Sect i on 3( 4)

of t he Act , t o consul t wi t h t he ci t i zens of Rehobot h, cannot i n my

opi ni on change t he meani ng of Sect i on 23.


43/56

43

I t was f ur t her , i n t he al t er nat i ve, submi t t ed by Counsel t hat i f t he

Cour t shoul d f i nd t hat t he vest i ng of owner shi p i n accor dance wi t h

Sect i on 23 of t he Act was not of a f i duci ary natur e but denuded t he

Fi r st Appl i cant of al l i t s r i ght , t i t l e and i nt er est i n t he pr opert y

t hen t hat vest i ng al so amount ed t o an expr opr i at i on f or whi ch t he

Fi r st Appl i cant shoul d be compensat ed.

The f al l acy of t hi s ar gument i s t hat i f any expropr i at i on t ook pl ace,

i t t ook pl ace as a r esul t of t he oper at i on of Sect i on 23 of t he Act at

t he speci f i ed t i me and has not hi ng t o do wi t h the oper at i on of

Schedul e 5 of t he Const i t ut i on. That bei ng t he case t her e i s no basi s

on whi ch Fi r st Respondent can be hel d l i abl e f or t he payment of

compensat i on t o the Fi r st Appl i cant . I n any event I am of t he opi ni on

t hat t he ef f ect of Schedul e 5 i s not t o expr opr i at e but t o t r ansf er

st at e l and, hi t her t o cont r ol l ed or owned by second t i er gover nment s,

and whi ch, as a r esul t of t he Nami bi an Const i t ut i on, ceased t o

f unct i on, t o t he Government of Nami bi a. The submi ss i ons of Mr de Br uyn

i n t hi s r egar d must t her ef or e be r ej ect ed.

St r ong r el i ance was pl aced, by Counsel f or t he Fi r st Appl i cant , on

Sect i ons 48, 49 and 52 of t he Regi st r at i on of Deeds i n Rehoboth Act ,

Act No. 93 of 1976. I t was submi t t ed t hat Act 93 of 1976 and Act 56 of

1976 compl ement each other and bear i ng i n mi nd t he provi si ons of

Sect i ons 48, 49 and 52 t he wi de i nt er pr et at i on of sect i on 23, cont ended

f or by Counsel f or t he Fi r st Respondent , i s not compet ent .


44/56

44

Sect i on 48 requi r ed pr oof of t he payment of al l t axes and ot her moneys

t o t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y bef ore the Regi st r ar of Deeds mi ght

r egi st er any t r ansf er of l and, or i ssued any l and t i t l e or compl i ed

wi t h any request t o f ur ni sh any document whi ch r el ated t o l and i n

Rehobot h. Sect i on 49 f ur t her pr ovi ded t hat any money pai d i n t erms of

Act 93 of 1976 shal l be pai d f or t he benef i t of t he Rehobot h Bast er

Communi t y. Sect i on 52 made the Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y l i abl e f or

mal a f i de or negl i gent act s or omi ssi ons per f or med by t he of f i ce of

t he Regi st r ar of Deeds.

I agr ee wi t h Counsel f or t he Fi r st Appl i cant t hat t her e i s a cl ose

connect i on bet ween t he Sel f - Gover nment Act and Act No. 93 of 1976.

These Act s were bot h pr omul gat ed r espect i vel y on 10 December , 1976 and

18 J une, 1976.

The provi si ons set out i n sect i ons 48, 49 and 52 seem t o me t o have

been necessary, bear i ng i n mi nd t he backgr ound hi st ory of t he Rehoboth

Communi t y rel at i ng t o t he owner shi p of t he l and, because of t he

uncer t ai nt y when t he i nst i t ut i ons pr ovi ded f or i n t he Act woul d be i n

pl ace. Thi s depended i nt er al i a on an el ect i on of t he Kapt ei n and

ot her of f i ce bear er s and, as i t i s, a sel f - gover nment f or Rehobot h

onl y came i nt o exi st ence on 2 J ul y, 1979. I t was onl y af t er t he

i naugur at i on of t he Government of Rehobot h t hat Sect i ons such as 25,

26, 27 and 28 coul d t ake ef f ect . To t hi s ext ent Sect i on 29 f or

i nst ance pr ovi des t hat no wi t hdr awal shal l be made f r om t he Rehobot h

Revenue Fund wi t hout a war r ant si gned by t he Kapt ei n. The dat e on

whi ch moneys wer e t o be pai d i nt o t he Rehobot h Revenue Fund was


45/56

45

st i l l t o be det er mi ned by the Mi ni st er . Thi s dat e was l at er on

det er mi ned by t he Mi ni st er as t he 1st Apr i l , 1978, and was t wo year s

af t er t he Act was pr omul gat ed. ( Sect i on 25. ) From t hen onwar ds al l

such moneys woul d be pai d i nt o the Revenue Fund. That i ncl uded al l

moneys payabl e i n t er ms of any pr ovi si on, r esol ut i on or pr act i ce t o

t he f und of t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y and i ncl uded al so al l moneys

st andi ng t o t he credi t of such f und. ( Sect i on 25 ( 2) ( a) ( i v) . ) To

t hi s must be added Sect i on 25 ( 2) ( b) whi ch pr ovi ded t hat "al l r evenue

and i ncome, i ncl udi ng l i cence f ees, t axes, f ees of of f i ce, f i nes,

f or f ei t ur es, r ent s and ot her moneys der i vi ng f r om or i n t he cour se of

t he admi ni st r at i on of t hose mat t er s i n r espect of whi ch t he

Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y of Rehobot h i s i n t er ms of t hi s Act empower ed t o

make l aws . . . "

I n t hi s r egar d I t em 37 of t he Schedul e t o t he Act i s r el evant i n t hat

i t empower ed t he Legi sl at i ve Aut hor i t y t o make l aws i n r egar d t o "t he

r egi st r at i on of deeds and t he sur vey of l and i n Rehobot h" . I n t he

l i ght of t hese pr ovi si ons of t he Act i t i s i n my opi ni on not wr ong t o

say t hat al l possi bl e sour ces of i ncome pr evi ousl y ear mar ked f or t he

Rehobot h Communi t y were ef f ect i vel y channel l ed t o t he Revenue Fund of

t he Gover nment of Rehobot h. Agai n i t i s r el evant t o not e t hat t he

per sonnel manni ng t he of f i ce of t he Rehobot h Bast er Communi t y was

t r ansf err ed t o t he ext ent pr ovi ded f or i n Sect i on 13 t o t he Gover nment

of Rehobot h and t he owner shi p of t he Bast er Communi t y i n l and was

deal t wi t h i n t er ms of Sect i on 23 and t he exi st i ng and pr ospect i ve

f unds of t he Bast er Communi t y became par t of t he Rehobot h


46/56

46

Revenue Fund i n terms of Sect i on 24.

I n t he l i ght of t he speci f i c pr ovi si ons of t he Act Sect i ons 48 and 49

of Act No. 93 of 1976 were denuded of al l cont ent and t hei r r el evance

as an ai d t o i nt er pr et Sect i on 23 non exi st ent . I n vi ew of t he

f or egoi ng t he l i abi l i t y of t he Bast er Communi t y f or mal a f i de and

negl i gent act s and omi ssi ons of t he Regi st r ar ' s of f i ce may, at t he end

of t he day, cr eat e an anomal y whi ch coul d and shoul d have been

addr essed by t he Rehoboth Gover nment usi ng t hei r l egi sl at i ve power s i n

t er ms of I t em 37 of t he Schedul e. I f t hi s gi ves r i se t o an anomal y i t

cannot be hel ped. I t does however not det r act f r om t he i nt er pr et at i on

gi ven t o Sect i on 23 set out her ei n bef or e. I n t er ms of t he pr ovi si ons

of Sect i on 13 r ead wi t h I t em 37, t he Regi st r ar of Deeds wi t h hi s

personnel became of f i ci al s of t he Rehobot h Government .

As f ar as Fi r st Appl i cant ' s money cl ai ms ar e concer ned i t seems t o me

t hat t hese ar e based i nt er al i a al so on t he pr ovi si ons of Sect i ons 48

and 49 of t he Deeds Act . The money st ood at I ndependence t o t he cr edi t

of t he Government of Rehobot h and i t i s now cl ai med t hat par t t hereof

bel onged t o t he Fi r st Appl i cant . Thi s i s deni ed by t he Fi r st

Respondent .

I t i s f ur t her mor e al l eged by t he Fi r st Appl i cant t hat t he Fi r st

Respondent has si nce I ndependence col l ect ed f or i t s own benef i t and

wi t hout t he consent of t he Fi r st Appl i cant moneys whi ch wer e, and

t her eaf t er became, due t o t he Fi r st Appl i cant f or i t s own benef i t . I n

r egar d t o t hi s cl ai m Mr


47/56

47

De Br uyn conceded t hat i t f al l s away i f t he Cour t shoul d come t o the

concl usi on t hat al l t he pr oper t y i n quest i on became t he pr oper t y of

t he Fi r st Respondent on t he appl i cat i on of Schedul e 5 of t he

Const i t ut i on.

Thi s concessi on seems t o me t o have been cor r ect l y made. However i f

t hat i s t he case af t er I ndependence, i t i n f act means t hat al l t he

sources f r om whi ch t he money now cl ai med came f r om were sour ces whi ch,

as a resul t of t he appl i cat i on of Sect i on 23 of t he Act , became t he

pr oper t y of t he Gover nment of Rehobot h pr i or t o I ndependence. Thi s i s

so because Schedul e 5 onl y appl i es t o t he pr opert y of t he Government

of Rehoboth. I n ot her wor ds t he concessi on made does not onl y r ef l ect

upon t he si t uat i on af t er I ndependence but , i f dr awn t o i t s l ogi cal

concl usi on, i t al so cl ear l y means t hat t he moneys now cl ai med by t he

Fi r st Appl i cant wer e der i ved f r om sour ces whi ch wer e pr i or t o

I ndependence t he proper t y of t he Rehobot h Gover nment .

Ther e i s no l ogi cal expl anat i on f or drawi ng a di st i nct i on between

money col l ect ed and pai d i nt o t he cof f ers of t he Rehobot h Government

bef ore I ndependence and t he col l ect i ng of t hat money af t er

I ndependence. I f Schedul e 5 appl i ed t o t hose f unds i t f ol l ows t hat t he

f unds must have been t he proper t y of t he Rehobot h Government .

Al t hough t he concessi on was not meant t o i ncl ude al so moneys col l ect ed

pr i or t o I ndependence a r eadi ng of t he var i ous pr ovi si ons of t he Act

makes i t cl ear , i n my opi ni on, t hat i t cannot be ot her wi se. I n t hi s

r egar d I am agai n r ef er r i ng t o


48/56

48

t he speci f i c pr ovi si ons set out i n Sect i ons 13, 23, 25 ( 2) ( a) ( i v) ,

25 ( 2) ( b) and al so t he Schedul e t o t he Act . To t hi s must be added the

hi st or i cal backgr ound as wel l as t he pur pose and obj ect of t he Act . I

have al r eady deal t her ei n bef or e wi t h t he ef f ect of t he pr ovi si ons of

t he sect i ons set out above and do not wi sh to repeat i t . I n my opi ni on

t he money cl ai ms of t he Fi r st Appl i cant ar e cover ed and f el l wi t hi n

t he ambi t of t he var i ous sect i ons r ef er r ed t o above.

Regar di ng t he t r ansf er of cer t ai n pr oper t y on I ndependence t o the

Gover nment of Nami bi a, Ar t . 124 of t he Const i t ut i on pr ovi des as

f ol l ows -

"The asset s ment i oned i n Schedul e 5 her eof shal l vest i n the

Gover nment of Nami bi a on t he dat e of I ndependence. "

Schedul e 5 of t he Const i t ut i on t hen pr ovi des as f ol l ows -

" ( 1) Al l pr oper t y of whi ch t he owner shi p or cont r ol i mmedi at el y

pr i or t o t he date of I ndependence vest ed i n the Gover nment of t he

Ter r i t or y of Sout h West Af r i ca or i n any Represent at i ve Aut hor i t y

i n t er ms of t he Repr esent at i ve Aut hor i t i es Pr ocl amat i on, 1980

( Procl amat i on AG 8 of 1980) , or i n t he Government of Rehobot h, or

i n any ot her body, st at ut or y or ot her wi se, const i t ut ed by or f ort he benef i t of such Gover nment or Aut hor i t y i mmedi at el y pr i or t o

t he date of I ndependence, or whi ch was hel d i n t r ust f or or on

behal f of t he Gover nment of an i ndependent Nami bi a shal l vest i n

or be under t he cont r ol of t he Government of Nami

Documents

High Court Namibia 1995