Louw and Others v Khomas Regional Council (1069 of 2015) [2015] NAHCMD 187 (8 October 2015)

Louw and Others v Khomas Regional Council (1069 of 2015) [2015] NAHCMD 187 (8 October 2015)

The defendant's application under rule 61 was dismissed because the objection raised was substantive (jurisdiction) and not procedural, and should have been raised by special plea. Rule 61 is not the proper procedure for substantive objections such as lack of jurisdiction. The defendant did not take a further step nor file out of time, but the application failed on the substantive/procedural distinction.

Citation
[2015] NAHCMD 187
Parties
Plaintiff: Lena Owoses-Louw; Plaintiff: Cornelius Ekandjo; Plaintiff: Veronika Ekandjo; Plaintiff: Shaun Fredericks; Plaintiff: Antonio Ricardo Cloete; Plaintiff: Theodosa Kaapulo Monica Nghishekwa; Plaintiff: Usiel Mbinge; Plaintiff: Ndamunogenka Kaali; Defendant: Khomas Regional Council
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
8 October 2015
Case Number
1069 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Summons as Irregular Proceeding
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Irregular Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Special Plea, Unjust Enrichment, Labour Disputes, Case Management
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Labour Law Irregular Proceedings Jurisdiction Special Plea Unjust Enrichment Labour Disputes Case Management

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lena Owoses-Louw

Plaintiff

Cornelius Ekandjo

Plaintiff

Veronika Ekandjo

Plaintiff

Shaun Fredericks

Plaintiff

Antonio Ricardo Cloete

Plaintiff

Theodosa Kaapulo Monica Nghishekwa

Plaintiff

Usiel Mbinge

Plaintiff

Ndamunogenka Kaali

Plaintiff

Khomas Regional Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Summons as Irregular Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside the summons as an irregular proceeding under rule 61 is proper where the objection is substantive (jurisdiction) rather than procedural
  2. 2 Whether the defendant took a further step in the proceedings precluding the rule 61 application
  3. 3 Whether the application was filed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's application under rule 61 was dismissed because the objection raised was substantive (jurisdiction) and not procedural, and should have been raised by special plea. Rule 61 is not the proper procedure for substantive objections such as lack of jurisdiction. The defendant did not take a further step nor file out of time, but the application failed on the substantive/procedural distinction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application in terms of rule 61 is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is postponed to 7 September 2015 for a case planning conference.