Beukes v Lottering (Reasons for Judgment) (I 2379 of 2011) [2012] NAHCMD 76 (27 January 2012)
Summary judgment applications are interlocutory and not subject to judicial case management allocation; the defendant failed to file an opposing affidavit or take steps allowed under rule 32(3); the claim is for a liquidated amount and qualifies for summary judgment.
- Citation
- [2012] NAHCMD 76
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniël Beukes; Defendant: Elsie Ragel Lottering
- Court
- High Court Main Division
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Judgment Date
- 27 January 2012
- Case Number
- I 2379 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Summary Judgment Application
- Outcome
- summary judgment granted for plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Judicial Case Management, Breach of Contract, Liquidated Claims
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniël Beukes
Plaintiff
Elsie Ragel Lottering
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an opposed summary judgment application must be allocated to a managing judge under judicial case management rules
- 2 Whether an affidavit is required to oppose summary judgment
- 3 Whether the claim qualifies for summary judgment
Ratio Decidendi
Summary judgment applications are interlocutory and not subject to judicial case management allocation; the defendant failed to file an opposing affidavit or take steps allowed under rule 32(3); the claim is for a liquidated amount and qualifies for summary judgment.
Court Disposition
summary judgment granted for plaintiff
Orders
- Order confirming the cancellation of the agreement
- Payment of N$10,000.00
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment