Husselmann v Saem (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 2293 of 2016) [2019] NAHCMD 145 (10 May 2019)

Husselmann v Saem (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 2293 of 2016) [2019] NAHCMD 145 (10 May 2019)

The plaintiffs' application for default judgment was ill-advised and unnecessary as the defendants had entered appearance and filed their plea. Withdrawal without consent or leave was improper. A punitive costs order was justified due to the plaintiffs' conduct.

Citation
[2019] NAHCMD 145
Parties
Plaintiff: Erika Penelope Husselmann; Defendant: Elroy Harold Saem
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 2293 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
application for default judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Withdrawal of Application, Costs Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Withdrawal of Application Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erika Penelope Husselmann

Plaintiff

Elroy Harold Saem

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to withdraw the application for default judgment without consent or leave of court
  2. 2 Whether the application for default judgment was justified
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' application for default judgment was ill-advised and unnecessary as the defendants had entered appearance and filed their plea. Withdrawal without consent or leave was improper. A punitive costs order was justified due to the plaintiffs' conduct.

Court Disposition

application for default judgment dismissed

Orders

  • The application for default judgment is dismissed.
  • Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the first and second defendants occasioned by the application for default judgment, jointly and severally, on the scale of attorney and client, including costs of one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner, not limited by rule 32(11).