Naanda v Fredrik [2020] NAHCMD 415 (15 September 2020)

Naanda v Fredrik [2020] NAHCMD 415 (15 September 2020)

The court order dated 12 November 2019 was erroneously granted because the second defendant was not properly served with the court order dated 24 September 2019, which placed an obligation on her to file an opposing affidavit, and there was insufficient evidence that she was aware or should be deemed to have been aware of the proceedings. This constitutes an error under rule 103(1)(a), warranting rescission.

Citation
[2020] NAHCMD 415
Parties
Plaintiff: Megameno Boas Naanda; First Defendant: Gerhardus Christian Fredrik; Second Defendant: Hilma Fredrik
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
15 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
application for rescission granted
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process, Summary Judgment, Representation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Service of Process Summary Judgment Representation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Megameno Boas Naanda

Plaintiff

Gerhardus Christian Fredrik

First Defendant

Hilma Fredrik

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dated 12 November 2019 was erroneously granted in the absence of the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant was properly served with the relevant court orders and application for summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant was legally represented

Ratio Decidendi

The court order dated 12 November 2019 was erroneously granted because the second defendant was not properly served with the court order dated 24 September 2019, which placed an obligation on her to file an opposing affidavit, and there was insufficient evidence that she was aware or should be deemed to have been aware of the proceedings. This constitutes an error under rule 103(1)(a), warranting rescission.

Court Disposition

application for rescission granted

Orders

  • The second defendant’s application for rescission of the court order dated 12 November 2019 is granted.
  • The warrant of ejectment issued by the registrar on 15 January 2020 is set aside.