Question one

Answer both questions under Namibia law

Around 1 200 villagers in the Zambezi region face eviction because of a decades-old dispute over an area reserved for wild animals. The area, near the Chobe River, is home to the Salambala Conservancy, around 50 kilometres south-east of Katima Mulilo. The conservancy has 18 villages with close to 9 000 people. There is, however, a land dispute which could affect as many as 1 200 people who were told to move from a forest meant for wild animals. The villagers claim they have been staying in the area for more than 60 years. Lawyers from a law firm representing Salambala Conservancy files court papers in July 2021, giving the villagers 60 days to vacate the land. The lawyers, who represent the Salambala Conservancy, argue in the court application that the villagers illegally occupied the land and resisted removal, despite orders by the conservancy which manages the area. They say the villagers do not have permission from the conservancy to occupy the land, and that 'the plaintiff [Salambala Conservancy] is the custodian of the disputed area, with an obligation to conserve its wildlife'. Further, they added that the resistance to move by the villagers in question has frustrated the conservancy.

Assume you are a lawyer, who represents the 1 200 villagers, shot back at the conservancy in a letter, rejecting the eviction order and poking holes in the legality of the conservancy. Critically discuss and refer to the relevant legislations and case law.

Question Two

Critically discuss and analyse the significance of Damaseb DCJ's Supreme Court judgement in the case of Kahimbi Kashela v Katima Mulilo Town Council and Others (SA-2017/15) [2018] NASC 409 (16 November 2018).