High Court reserves judgment on Menzies HKIA exit

Martin Endjala

High Court Judge Shafimana Ueitele will on Thursday morning deliver judgment in a matter in which Menzies Aviation wants the court to grant them permission to vacate the Hosea Kutako International Airport in 30 days, as opposed to a Supreme Court ruling that said the company should leave the premises immediately.

Menzies Aviation Legal Representative Advocate Raymond Heathcote argued that if they are made to evacuate the airport with immediate effect as per the Supreme Court order, operations tomorrow at the airport are going to be “a disaster.” Menzies was given until yesterday to exit, until their recent application for a 30-day extension.

The company applied for an urgent appeal in an attempt to avoid being evacuated immediately.

However, Sisa Namandje on behalf of Paragon Investments and Unanisa Hengari on behalf of the Namibia Airports Company argued that they needed more time to peruse the documents filed by Menzies Aviation.

Namandje and Hengari say that they were not given sufficient time to peruse the affidavits and subsequently file their answering affidavits.

Namandje argued his case saying that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that it was finalized in the Supreme Court, which is the hugest court of jurisdiction.

“Your Lordship you have practiced law and you have been on the bench for a long time. A lot of judments were given and many people were not happy with them but people did not resort to this tactics being shown.They want to extend this unlawful gain profits further,” Namandje told the presiding judge Ueitele.

Namandje in his submissin said that the orders sought by Menzies Aviation are incompetent and that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter as it was Finalised last week Friday in the Supreme Court.

Menzies Aviation’s operations at the HKIA contract was terminated with immediate effect last year 30 June after losing out to NAC and Paragon Investment in court but continued operating and overstaying their stay despite the court ruling against them.

Related Posts