Kambuze & Another v Shilimela Advanced Security Services CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3938 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 90 (2 March 2021)

Kambuze & Another v Shilimela Advanced Security Services CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3938 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 90 (2 March 2021)

Failure to name the employee in a claim based on vicarious liability does not render the particulars of claim excipiable; the particulars as pleaded disclose a cause of action and are not vague and embarrassing.

Citation
[2021] NAHCMD 90
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Saara Kambuze; 2nd Plaintiff: Kristof Namukwambi; Defendant: Shilimela Advanced Security Services CC
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
2 March 2021
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3938 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Delict (damages) / Ruling on Exception
Outcome
Defendant's exception dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Exception Procedure, Pleadings, Employer Liability
Source Language
English
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Exception Procedure Pleadings Employer Liability

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saara Kambuze

1st Plaintiff

Kristof Namukwambi

2nd Plaintiff

Shilimela Advanced Security Services CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Delict (damages) / Ruling on Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to name the employee in particulars of claim is fatal to a claim based on vicarious liability
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to name the employee in a claim based on vicarious liability does not render the particulars of claim excipiable; the particulars as pleaded disclose a cause of action and are not vague and embarrassing.

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant’s exception brought against the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of opposing the exception is subject to rule 32(11).