Opperman and Another v Mathias (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2873 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 581 (8 December 2021)

Opperman and Another v Mathias (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2873 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 581 (8 December 2021)

The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default and established a bona fide defence on the papers, satisfying the requirements for rescission of default judgment under Rule 16.

Citation
[2021] NAHCMD 581
Parties
1st Applicant: Magano Margeret Opperman; 2nd Applicant: Shalongo Elizabeth Sheehama; Respondent: Franklin Mathias
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
8 December 2021
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2873 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation, Application for Rescission of Default Judgment) / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Writ of Execution
Outcome
Application granted; default judgment and writ of execution set aside; leave to defend granted.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Writ of Execution, Security for Costs, Defamation, Bona Fide Defence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Defamation Rescission of Default Judgment Writ of Execution Security for Costs Bona Fide Defence

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

Parties

Magano Margeret Opperman

1st Applicant

Shalongo Elizabeth Sheehama

2nd Applicant

Franklin Mathias

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation, Application for Rescission of Default Judgment) / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Writ of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a bona fide defence to the respondent's defamation claim
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Rule 16 for rescission of default judgment were met

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default and established a bona fide defence on the papers, satisfying the requirements for rescission of default judgment under Rule 16.

Court Disposition

Application granted; default judgment and writ of execution set aside; leave to defend granted.

Orders

  • Late filing of heads of argument condoned.
  • Judgment of 29 September 2020 and subsequent writ of execution set aside.