Keendjele v Kamanya (HC-NLD-CIV-MOT-GEN 5 of 2021) [2021] NAHCNLD 35 (6 April 2021)

Keendjele v Kamanya (HC-NLD-CIV-MOT-GEN 5 of 2021) [2021] NAHCNLD 35 (6 April 2021)

The applicant failed to explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and did not provide sufficient detail as to why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The founding affidavit was vague and did not meet the high standard of disclosure required for urgency under Rule 73. Additionally, the applicant did not establish a prima facie right due to deficiencies in the lease agreement and supporting documents. The application for urgency was therefore refused.

Citation
[2021] NAHCNLD 35
Parties
Applicant: Gerson Keendjele; Respondent: Darius Kamanya; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security (Namibian Police Inspector General)
Court
Northern Local Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
6 April 2021
Case Number
HC-NLD-CIV-MOT-GEN 5 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (urgent Application for Interdict) / Ruling on Urgency
Outcome
Application for urgency refused; matter removed from the roll; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Interim Interdicts, Lease Agreements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Urgent Applications Interim Interdicts Lease Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerson Keendjele

Applicant

Darius Kamanya

Respondent

Minister of Safety and Security (Namibian Police Inspector General)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (urgent Application for Interdict) / Ruling on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency under Rule 73
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a prima facie right for interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and did not provide sufficient detail as to why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The founding affidavit was vague and did not meet the high standard of disclosure required for urgency under Rule 73. Additionally, the applicant did not establish a prima facie right due to deficiencies in the lease agreement and supporting documents. The application for urgency was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for urgency refused; matter removed from the roll; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to have the matter heard on an urgent basis in terms of rule 73 is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.