Alexander Forbes Group Nambia (Pty) Ltd v Ahrens (75 of 2010) [2011] NALC 11 (5 April 2011)

Alexander Forbes Group Nambia (Pty) Ltd v Ahrens (75 of 2010) [2011] NALC 11 (5 April 2011)

The applicant established prima facie evidence of wilful and continued breach of a valid court order by the respondent, justifying urgent interim relief and contempt proceedings.

Citation
[2011] NALC 11
Parties
Applicant: Alexander Forbes Group Namibia (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Heinz Werner Ahrens
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
5 April 2011
Case Number
75 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Labour Application (urgent Motion) / Interlocutory Application for Contempt and Interim Relief
Outcome
Rule nisi issued; interim relief granted; respondent to show cause; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Contempt of Court, Restraint of Trade, Interim Interdicts
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgency in Applications Contempt of Court Restraint of Trade Interim Interdicts

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Forbes Group Namibia (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Heinz Werner Ahrens

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Application (urgent Motion) / Interlocutory Application for Contempt and Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard on an urgent basis
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is in contempt of a court order
  3. 3 Whether interim relief should be granted pending the main application

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established prima facie evidence of wilful and continued breach of a valid court order by the respondent, justifying urgent interim relief and contempt proceedings.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi issued; interim relief granted; respondent to show cause; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant's non-compliance with forms and service condoned; matter heard as urgent.
  • Rule nisi issued calling upon respondent to show cause on 8 April 2011 why final order should not be made.