Nipko v Nipko (1176 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 112 (12 April 2011)

Nipko v Nipko (1176 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 112 (12 April 2011)

The respondent's objection to the amendment was not clear and concise as required by Rule 28(4), and was inherently contradictory, thus irregular. The application to compel was removed from the roll with no order as to costs due to remissness on both sides.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 112
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Brigitte Nipko (born Kötzle); Respondent/defendant: Klaus Dieter Nipko
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
12 April 2011
Case Number
1176 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (divorce/interlocutory) / Interlocutory Applications Ruling
Outcome
Rule 30 application succeeds with costs; application to compel removed from roll with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Application to Compel, Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28 Objection, Rule 30 Application, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Application to Compel Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Objection Rule 30 Application Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brigitte Nipko (born Kötzle)

Applicant/plaintiff

Klaus Dieter Nipko

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (divorce/interlocutory) / Interlocutory Applications Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to compel was properly brought and costs should be awarded
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's objection to amendment complied with Rule 28(4)
  3. 3 Whether the Rule 30 application to set aside the objection should succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's objection to the amendment was not clear and concise as required by Rule 28(4), and was inherently contradictory, thus irregular. The application to compel was removed from the roll with no order as to costs due to remissness on both sides.

Court Disposition

Rule 30 application succeeds with costs; application to compel removed from roll with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application to compel removed from the roll, no order as to costs.
  • Rule 30 application succeeds with costs.