Ae Gams Data (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sebata Municipal Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Others (APPEAL 224 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 6 (21 January 2011)

Ae Gams Data (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sebata Municipal Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Others (APPEAL 224 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 6 (21 January 2011)

Leave to appeal against the interdict order is refused because the order is interlocutory and not appealable. The Rule 30 application is dismissed as the High Court has no jurisdiction over notices to the Supreme Court. The respondent is found in contempt of court for wilful and mala fide disregard of the interdict and Rule Nisi, as reliance on legal advice was unreasonable after the contempt order. The exception is struck from the roll as the respondent is in contempt and the issue is academic pending the Supreme Court appeal.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 6
Parties
Applicant: /AE//GAMS DATA (PTY) LTD; Applicant: /AE//GAMS NETWORKS (PTY) LTD; Applicant: PHILIPPUS BRINK VAN SCHALKWYK; Respondent: SEBATA MUNICIPAL SOLUTION (PTY) LTD; Respondent: MAXTEC LTD; Respondent: NYL-DATA COMPUTER SERVICE (PTY) LTD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Case Number
APPEAL 224 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Leave to Appeal, Rule 30 Application, Contempt of Court, and Exception
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; Rule 30 application dismissed; Rule Nisi for contempt confirmed; exception struck from roll.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interdicts, Contempt of Court, Exception, Jurisdiction, Rule 30 Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Contempt of Court Leave to Appeal Interdicts Exception Jurisdiction Rule 30 Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

/AE//GAMS DATA (PTY) LTD

Applicant

/AE//GAMS NETWORKS (PTY) LTD

Applicant

PHILIPPUS BRINK VAN SCHALKWYK

Applicant

SEBATA MUNICIPAL SOLUTION (PTY) LTD

Respondent

MAXTEC LTD

Respondent

NYL-DATA COMPUTER SERVICE (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Leave to Appeal, Rule 30 Application, Contempt of Court, and Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal against the interdict order should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Rule 30 application should succeed
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is in contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal against the interdict order is refused because the order is interlocutory and not appealable. The Rule 30 application is dismissed as the High Court has no jurisdiction over notices to the Supreme Court. The respondent is found in contempt of court for wilful and mala fide disregard of the interdict and Rule Nisi, as reliance on legal advice was unreasonable after the contempt order. The exception is struck from the roll as the respondent is in contempt and the issue is academic pending the Supreme Court appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; Rule 30 application dismissed; Rule Nisi for contempt confirmed; exception struck from roll.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal against the order of Hinrichsen AJ in case A224/2009 is refused with costs, including costs of one instructing and two instructed counsel, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.
  • Rule 30 application is dismissed and no order of costs is made.