Huseb v Uushona (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 40 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 54 (19 February 2021)

Huseb v Uushona (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 40 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 54 (19 February 2021)

The applicant failed to explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and did not provide reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course. The urgency was self-created as the applicant delayed action despite knowing of the unlawful occupation since 1 November 2020. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NAHCMD 54
Parties
Applicant: Albertus Bebe /Huseb; Respondent: Helvi Ndilimeke Uushona
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
19 February 2021
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 40 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Motion / Ruling on Urgency
Outcome
application refused for lack of urgency and struck from the roll
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Eviction, Rule 73(4) Requirements
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Urgent Applications Eviction Rule 73(4) Requirements

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albertus Bebe /Huseb

Applicant

Helvi Ndilimeke Uushona

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Ruling on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency under rule 73(4)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has set forth explicit circumstances rendering the matter urgent
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and did not provide reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course. The urgency was self-created as the applicant delayed action despite knowing of the unlawful occupation since 1 November 2020. The requirements of rule 73(4) were not met.

Court Disposition

application refused for lack of urgency and struck from the roll

Orders

  • The application is refused for lack of urgency, and is struck from the roll.
  • There is no order as to costs.