Pearson v Orman (1355 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 62 (2 March 2011)

Pearson v Orman (1355 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 62 (2 March 2011)

The plaintiff's reliance on tacit or implied terms is precluded by the written agreement's clauses requiring amendments to be in writing and signed by both parties, and by the parole evidence rule. The particulars of claim lack necessary averments to sustain the action, and no possible evidence could disclose a cause of action.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 62
Parties
Plaintiff: Hendrik Johannes Pearson; Defendant: A E M Orman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
2 March 2011
Case Number
1355 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Exception
Outcome
Defendant's exception upheld; plaintiff's claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Parole Evidence Rule, Pleadings, Exceptions, Written Agreements
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Parole Evidence Rule Pleadings Exceptions Written 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Johannes Pearson

Plaintiff

A E M Orman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in light of the written agreement and the parole evidence rule
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff can rely on alleged tacit or implied terms not reduced to writing

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's reliance on tacit or implied terms is precluded by the written agreement's clauses requiring amendments to be in writing and signed by both parties, and by the parole evidence rule. The particulars of claim lack necessary averments to sustain the action, and no possible evidence could disclose a cause of action.

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception upheld; plaintiff's claim struck out.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's late filing of heads of argument is condoned with no order as to costs regarding condonation.
  • Defendant's exception is granted with costs.