Position: Managing Partner
Telephone: + 264 (0) 61 38 3303
Email: mkutzner@englinglaw.com.na

Key Practice Areas

Litigation & dispute resolution:

  • Dispute resolution
  • Labour
  • Liquor, gambling and casino licensing
  • Litigation (civil & commercial)

Advises on:

  • Employment related issues
  • Employment agreements, and policies and procedures
  • General employment advice
  • Litigation and private dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration)
  • Organisational restructuring
  • Public law employment related issues
  • Regulatory advice
  • Transferring and outsourcing of businesses
  • Workplace employment equity and discrimination issues
  • Collective bargaining


  • B Iuris LLB (University of Pretoria)
  • Admitted Legal Practitioner in Namibia (1992)
  • Member of the Law Society of Namibia
  • Notary Public (2007)

Professional involvement:

  • Member of Standing Committee on Ethics of Law Society of Namibia (2008 to present)


  • Involved as counsel in various high profile/reported litigation matter, including the following:
  • Vlasiu v President of the Republic of Namibia 1994 NR 332 where the Labour Court held that the concept of economic duress as understood in English law was compatible with the labour law and ethics in Namibia. In English law the exertion of commercial pressure on a party to a contract of employment in order to induce him to enter into a contract amounted to economic duress entitling the party to avoid the contract, provided that the pressure amounted to a coercion of the will that vitiated consent
  • Fantasy Enterprises CC t/a Hustler The Shop v Minister of Home Affairs and another 1998 NR 96 where it was held that the right to an important freedom, such as the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 21(1)(a) of the Constitution should be construed purposefully. “Speech and expression” extended also to non-political discourse; included graphic expressions; contemplated not only the act of imparting but also of receiving information and ideas and was not limited in content to that which could be regarded as pleasing, inoffensive or indifferent, but extended also to that which disturbed, offended or shocked. Consequently, the court declared the provision of s 2(1) of the Indecent and Obscene Photographic Matter Act 37 of 1967 unconstitutional
  • Lisse v The Minister of Health and Social Services 2004 NR 107 where it was held that the doctrine of “legitimate expectation” in administrative law may even entitle a person whose claim falls short of a legal right to some kind of a hearing if the interest at stake rises to the level of a “legitimate expectation”. A balance must be exercised between a person’s legitimate expectation and the interest of the decision-maker
  • Waterberg Big Game Hunting Lodge Otjahewita (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environment and Tourism 2010 (1) NR 1 where it was held that party has a reasonable expectation to fair administrative justice in terms of art 18 of the Namibian Constitution where a decision is taken by decision-maker who relies on facts unknown to the other party and which adversely affects that party
  • Acted as part of the local counsel team for Xaris Energy (Pty) Ltd (Xaris), a power generation company, in a review application in the High Court of Namibia instituted by Arandis Power (Pty) Ltd against the decision of the Namibia Power Corporation (Nampower) to grant a tender for the construction of a 230MW power plant at Walvis Bay, which the court decided in favour of Xaris