H v H (1) (APPEAL 343 of 2009) [2010] NAHC 91 (21 September 2010)

H v H (1) (APPEAL 343 of 2009) [2010] NAHC 91 (21 September 2010)

The applicant failed to prove that payments made were for the respondent personally and not for the children. The respondent's version raised a genuine dispute of fact, and the applicant did not comply with the deed of settlement. The writ of execution stands.

Citation
[2010] NAHC 91
Parties
Applicant: M G H; Respondent: C M H (Born S)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
21 September 2010
Case Number
APPEAL 343 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Writ of Execution, Divorce Settlement, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Maintenance Writ of Execution Divorce Settlement Burden of Proof

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M G H

Applicant

C M H (Born S)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ of execution for arrear maintenance should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether payments made by the applicant were for the respondent personally or for the minor children
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with the deed of settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that payments made were for the respondent personally and not for the children. The respondent's version raised a genuine dispute of fact, and the applicant did not comply with the deed of settlement. The writ of execution stands.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale, including costs of one instructing counsel and one instructed counsel.