Penderis v De Klerk [2020] NAHCMD 392 (28 August 2020)

Penderis v De Klerk [2020] NAHCMD 392 (28 August 2020)

The defendant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on the merits. Practice direction 58(4) applies to all parties using the e-justice system, not only to those represented by legal practitioners. The application for re-instatement was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2020] NAHCMD 392
Parties
Plaintiff: Christiaan Johannes Von Solms; Defendant: Mavin Mootseng
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
28 August 2020 3 September 2020 28 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Re Instatement of Rescission Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Re Instatement of Application, Practice Directions, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Re Instatement of Application Practice Directions Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan Johannes Von Solms

Plaintiff

Mavin Mootseng

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Re Instatement of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for default in prosecuting the rescission application
  2. 2 Whether the defendant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on the merits
  3. 3 Whether practice direction 58(4)(b) applies to unrepresented parties

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on the merits. Practice direction 58(4) applies to all parties using the e-justice system, not only to those represented by legal practitioners. The application for re-instatement was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application by the defendant for re-instatement of an application for rescission of a judgment granted by this court on 24 June 2019 is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs occasioned by plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s application for re-instatement as well as to the application for rescission.