Feris v Jacobs (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 2129 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 439 (25 August 2022)

Feris v Jacobs (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 2129 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 439 (25 August 2022)

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application, did not rebut the presumption of proper service, and did not establish a bona fide defence; therefore, the application for rescission is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] NAHCMD 439
Parties
Applicant: Gert Jacobus Feris; Applicant: Elizabeth Feris; Respondent: James Jacobs; Respondent: Magrita Dorothea Diergaardt; Respondent: Ansonette Viljoen; Respondent: Denzel Jarvis; Respondent: Aquarius Investments 150 CC; Respondent: Registrar Of Deeds Office (of Rehoboth District)
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
25 August 2022
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 2129 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Ruling on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs; matter removed from the roll and regarded as finalized.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Condonation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Process Condonation

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

Parties

Gert Jacobus Feris

Applicant

Elizabeth Feris

Applicant

James Jacobs

Respondent

Magrita Dorothea Diergaardt

Respondent

Ansonette Viljoen

Respondent

Denzel Jarvis

Respondent

Aquarius Investments 150 CC

Respondent

Registrar Of Deeds Office (of Rehoboth District)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Ruling on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for default and delay in bringing the rescission application
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a bona fide defence to the respondents' claim
  3. 3 Whether service of process was properly effected on the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application, did not rebut the presumption of proper service, and did not establish a bona fide defence; therefore, the application for rescission is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs; matter removed from the roll and regarded as finalized.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed, with costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. Costs shall not be capped in terms of rule 32(11).
  • The matter is removed from the roll and is regarded finalized.