Justicia Shipena
The Supreme Court of Namibia has ruled that the Livestock and Livestock Products Board of Namibia (LLPBN) did not meet the legal standard to claim “wasted costs” in a dispute linked to the veterinary cordon fence, known as the redline.
The court made the ruling on Thursday. Deputy chief justice Petrus Damaseb presided, with acting judges of appeal Dave Smuts and Elizabeth Makarau concurring.
The case focused only on legal costs and not the main constitutional issue involving livestock movement restrictions along the redline.
The court explained that wasted costs arise when one party forces another to spend money on legal steps that serve no proper purpose.
“Where a litigant, by unreasonable or dilatory conduct, causes procedural steps to become abortive or compels the opposing party to incur costs that serve no legitimate forensic purpose, such costs are properly characterised as ‘wasted’ or ‘thrown away’,” the ruling stated.
The court found that the Board’s claim did not meet this threshold.
In 2021, Affirmative Repositioning movement leader Job Shipululo Amupanda approached the High Court, challenging the redline restrictions.
The LLPBN was later added to the case and argued that changes to Amupanda’s court papers caused it to incur unnecessary legal costs.
The board claimed that repeated amendments and court processes compelled it to incur additional expenses, and it demanded full reimbursement for these costs.
The court rejected this claim. It found that the steps taken were part of normal legal proceedings.
Damaseb said case management processes cannot be treated as wasted costs because participation is required by law.
“Participation in case management activity is not in the discretion of the parties. They are required by law to participate in it,” he said.
The court also ruled that amendments to correct legal papers do not make earlier steps useless.
“Where an amendment cures a complaint raised by an exception and the matter proceeds without delay, the costs incurred in raising the exception are not wasted.”
The court said costs linked to amendments can be recovered, but they are limited by court rules.
Under rule 32(11), such costs are capped at N$20 000 unless a court decides otherwise.
The board argued that these limits should not apply, but the court disagreed and said amendment proceedings fall under this rule.
The Supreme Court also noted that the board took part in the case management process without objecting.
The court ruled that the board is not entitled to broader costs because it did not succeed.
“It follows that the appellant was not entitled to any costs a quo. And since the appellant fails on appeal, it is also denied costs of the appeal.”
The court upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal.
