Leopard Tours Car and Camping Hire CC v Dannecker (2909 of 2006) [2016] NAHCMD 260 (9 September 2016)

Leopard Tours Car and Camping Hire CC v Dannecker (2909 of 2006) [2016] NAHCMD 260 (9 September 2016)

The refusal of absolution of the instance is interlocutory in nature as it does not finally determine the rights of the parties or dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed; therefore, the cost cap in rule 32(11) applies, rendering the taxed bill and warrant of execution incompetent.

Citation
[2016] NAHCMD 260
Parties
Applicant: Leopard Tours Car and Camping Hire CC; Applicant: Barbara Hausner; Applicant: Manfred Hausner; Respondent: Dietmar Dannecker
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
9 September 2016
Case Number
2909 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Application / Post Interlocutory Costs and Execution Challenge
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Costs, Absolution of the Instance, Appealability
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Orders Costs Absolution of the Instance Appealability

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leopard Tours Car and Camping Hire CC

Applicant

Barbara Hausner

Applicant

Manfred Hausner

Applicant

Dietmar Dannecker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Post Interlocutory Costs and Execution Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of absolution of the instance is an interlocutory order subject to cost limitation under rule 32(11)
  2. 2 Whether the taxed bill of costs and subsequent warrant of execution were competent given the cost limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal of absolution of the instance is interlocutory in nature as it does not finally determine the rights of the parties or dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed; therefore, the cost cap in rule 32(11) applies, rendering the taxed bill and warrant of execution incompetent.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The application is granted.
  • The warrant of execution dated 7 July 2015 is set aside.