Hoveka v Standard Bank Ltd and Others (APPEAL 19 of 1997) [1997] NAHC 3 (7 February 1997)

GERSON HOVEKA vs STANDARD BANK LTD & 3 OTHER A 19/97 HEARD ON: 1997/02/04 DELIVERED ON: 1997/02/07 JUDGMENT Application by way of Notice of Motion for a Rule nisi to restrain a sale in execution and to set aside the proceedings for such sale. Original opposition withdrawn, rule ni si granted in terms of Notice of Motion and tender of costs by certain respondents. c; CASE NO. A 19/97 APPLICANT FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between GERSON HOVEKA versus STANDARD BANK LTD R6SSING URANIUM LTD THE DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS :ORAMi LEVY, A. J. Eeard on: 1957 . C2 . 04 .elivered or.: 1997. C2. 0 7 JUDGMENT LEVY, A. J. : On the 4th of app_itar.t came tc 2curt on net ice cf motion for relief which it i; i ^ r* s> c c a T" at this staae tc 6e Or. chat date th< resooncent; : at ior. was ocrcsea n\ By agreement the parties settled the time schedule applicable to the times for filing an opposition and replying affidavits and the matter stood down to be heard at This morning the Court was advised that first and second respondents had withdrawn its opposition and in fact a document has been filed in terms whereof it is recorded that first, second and third respondents have withdrawn their opposition to the applicant's application and that they tender costs to date on a party and party basis. Applicant persists in its application ana asks for a judgment in terms of its notice of motion. In view of the fact that respondents were served and were represented in this Court and had withdrawn their opposition, this Court now orders that a rule nisi do issue returnable March, 1957 in terms of paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.2, ar.d 2.5 of the notice of motion. Furthermore it is that in terms of paragraph 2 of the notice of mot the order shall operate as an interim interdict res the transfer of the said property as set out in th cf motion. At this stage it is advisable to record again that t tc date have been tendered by first, second an respondents. This is irrespective ci the fact tha' hearing hereof the costs will nave to be considered i.e. the costs as from today's date. The order operates as an interim interdict as applied for in terms of the notice of motion. LEVY, 'ACTING JUDGE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: ADV R T6TEMEYER Instructed by: B Bloch ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS: Instructed by: ADV J SWANEPOEL Lorentz & Bone