Elgin Brown & Hamer Namibia (PTY) LTD v Hydrodive Offshore International Limited (72 of 2016) [2017] NAHCMD 175 (26 June 2017)

Elgin Brown & Hamer Namibia (PTY) LTD v Hydrodive Offshore International Limited (72 of 2016) [2017] NAHCMD 175 (26 June 2017)

The applicant failed to comply with the court order and Rule 11(1)(a) regarding service of process in a foreign country. Service was effected by an unauthorised person and not at the respondent’s registered address. There was no satisfactory explanation for non-compliance. The court cannot condone such flagrant disregard for its rules and orders. The application is struck from the roll as there was no proper service.

Citation
[2017] NAHCMD 175
Parties
Applicant: Elgin Brown & Hamer Namibia (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hydrodive Offshore International Limited
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
26 June 2017
Case Number
72 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Application / Application for Condonation of Service and Joinder as Co Defendant
Outcome
application struck from the roll with costs
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Condonation, Joinder of Parties, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
English
Admiralty Civil Procedure Service of Process Condonation Joinder of Parties Compliance With Court Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elgin Brown & Hamer Namibia (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hydrodive Offshore International Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Application / Application for Condonation of Service and Joinder as Co Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manner of service of the application on the respondent may be condoned
  2. 2 Whether the respondent may be declared co-defendant in the proceedings in rem

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the court order and Rule 11(1)(a) regarding service of process in a foreign country. Service was effected by an unauthorised person and not at the respondent’s registered address. There was no satisfactory explanation for non-compliance. The court cannot condone such flagrant disregard for its rules and orders. The application is struck from the roll as there was no proper service.

Court Disposition

application struck from the roll with costs

Orders

  • The application to condone the manner of service is unsuccessful.
  • The application is struck from the roll with costs for one instructed and one instructing counsel.