The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal against a judgement of the High Court, which dismissed an exception to a land servicing agreement case.

The case involves the government and the Affirmative Repositioning (AR) Movement, a social movement advocating for land reform and housing rights.

The matter before the court concerned an alleged agreement in which the government committed to servicing 200,000 housing plots nationwide within two years.

The agreement was reportedly based on resolutions resulting from a meeting between the government and AR representatives at State House in 2015.

According to the particulars of the claim presented by AR, the government, represented by President Hage Geingob, agreed to embark on the massive urban land servicing project in line with the President's declared "War on Poverty" during his inauguration and 2015 State of the Nation Address.

In return, AR committed to abstaining from its intended radical programme to occupy vacant land in urban areas.

However, the government appealed the case, contesting the enforceability of the alleged agreement on several grounds.

The government argued that the agreement was against public policy and the rule of law and lacked the necessary elements to be legally enforceable.

Additionally, the government contended that the resolutions were policy statements and not binding contractual obligations.

In the Supreme Court's judgement, delivered by Justice Silvester Mainga, the court ruled in favour of the government's appeal.

The court held that the alleged agreement lacked the intention to be legally binding and therefore could not be enforced by a court of law.

As a result of the ruling, the appeal was upheld, and the High Court's decision was altered.

The particulars of the claim presented by AR were set aside, granting the organisation one month to file a notice to amend the particulars of the claim.

Failure to do so would allow the government to apply for the dismissal of AR's action.



Daniel Nadunya