Haradoeb v Bennani (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2915 of 2017) [2022] NAHCMD 300 (17 June 2022)

Haradoeb v Bennani (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2915 of 2017) [2022] NAHCMD 300 (17 June 2022)

The applicants provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay, the amendment aligns with their pleadings, and the respondent will not suffer prejudice. Therefore, the application to vary and amend the pre-trial order is granted.

Citation
[2022] NAHCMD 300
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Nabil Bennani; 1st Defendant/applicant: Cynthia Kotchanova; 2nd Defendant/applicant: Nicolai Kotchanova; 3rd Defendant/applicant: Ellis Elton Ta-Gora-Ate Haradoeb; 4th Defendant/applicant: Consetha Desiree Kgobetsi-Hardoes; 5th Defendant: Registrar of Deeds; 6th Defendant: Standard Bank Namibia Limited
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
17 June 2022 17 June 2022 16 June 2022
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2915 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (other) / Application for Variation/amendment of Pre Trial Order
Outcome
Application for variation and amendment of the pre-trial order is successful.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pre Trial Orders, Case Management, Prejudice, Pleadings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pre Trial Orders Case Management Prejudice Pleadings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nabil Bennani

Plaintiff/respondent

Cynthia Kotchanova

1st Defendant/applicant

Nicolai Kotchanova

2nd Defendant/applicant

Ellis Elton Ta-Gora-Ate Haradoeb

3rd Defendant/applicant

Consetha Desiree Kgobetsi-Hardoes

4th Defendant/applicant

Registrar of Deeds

5th Defendant

Standard Bank Namibia Limited

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (other) / Application for Variation/amendment of Pre Trial Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to vary and amend the joint pre-trial order report by removing paragraph 26(6)(c)(2)
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application was reasonably explained
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the amendment is allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay, the amendment aligns with their pleadings, and the respondent will not suffer prejudice. Therefore, the application to vary and amend the pre-trial order is granted.

Court Disposition

Application for variation and amendment of the pre-trial order is successful.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to vary and amend the joint pre-trial order report filed on 15 November 2019 and made a court order on 25 November 2019, by removing the entire paragraph 26(6)(c)(2).
  • No order as to costs.