Eco-Nam Building and Civils CC v Okuvakuatjivi Investments CC (Practice Directive 61) (HC-MD-CI V-MOT-GEN 74 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 100 (20 April 2018)

Eco-Nam Building and Civils CC v Okuvakuatjivi Investments CC (Practice Directive 61) (HC-MD-CI V-MOT-GEN 74 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 100 (20 April 2018)

Condonation was granted as the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicant was not entitled to costs as it never came on record to defend the action.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NAHCMD 100
Parties
Applicant: Eco-Nam Building and Civils CC; Respondent: Okuvakuatjivi Investments CC
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Case Number
HC-MD-CI V-MOT-GEN 74 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Motion / Ruling on Condonation and Costs After Withdrawal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Condonation, Costs, Withdrawal of Action
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Condonation Costs Withdrawal of Action

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eco-Nam Building and Civils CC

Applicant

Okuvakuatjivi Investments CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Ruling on Condonation and Costs After Withdrawal

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for late filing of heads of argument
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs after withdrawal of action

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation was granted as the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicant was not entitled to costs as it never came on record to defend the action.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Respondent granted condonation for late filing of heads of argument
  • Applicant’s application in terms of Rule 97(3) dismissed