objections of all kinds and even tried at the eleventh hour, against all evidence to the contrary, to contend before us that the Applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies through the failure of his legal advisers to raise certain fundamental issues relating to the case before the High Court and the Supreme Court of the Respondent, as indicated already, when in fact they had done so. Moreover, the Respondent's learned Agent chose not to address those issues before us on the ground that, in his view, it would be better to raise them first before the Supreme Court of the Respondent. We consider that the stand taken by Counsel both pre-empted and pre-judged our decision on the issue of the exhaustion of local remedies which, it must be stressed again, he had raised not in the defence of the Respondent but in a supplementary affidavit which he sought belatedly to produce and which we refused to admit, as indicated already. We take the view that, if an objective observer were present at the proceedings of the Tribunal, he or she would have come to the irresistible conclusion in the circumstances that no counter-arguments were offered on behalf of the Respondent since the Respondent knew or ought to have known that it stood no prospect of success; that the Respondent persisted all the same to pursue the matter regardless, instead of coming to terms with the Applicant who has always been willing to compromise and come to an amicable settlement with the Respondent, especially in the light of the formidable authorities produced before the Tribunal on behalf of the Applicant, including the Mike Campbell v The Republic of Zimbabwe case, quoted already, which had significantly decided the very same legal issues against the Respondent and in which learned Agent for the Respondent had appeared. For all the reasons given, we consequently make a costs order against the Respondent under Rule 78(2) of the Rules. The costs are to be determined by the Registrar in case of disagreement between the parties. Delivered in open court this 14th day of August 2009, at Windhoek in the Republic of Namibia. ...................................................................... H. E. Justice Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay PRESIDENT ...................................................................... H. E. Justice Isaac Jamu Mtambo, SC MEMBER ....................................................................... H. E. Justice Dr. Luis Antonio Mondlane MEMBER .................................??................................... H. E. Justice Dr. Rigoberto Kambovo MEMBER ....................................................................... H. E. Dr. Onkemetse B. Tshosa MEMBER 1 Editor's note: The article to which reference is made here is Article 26 as it was before the entry into force (in 1998) of Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Protocol No. 11 has changed Article 26 and the provisions of the latter are now found in Article 35 of the European Convention 9