Loots v Schmidt (2) (1426 of 2011) [2013] NAHCMD 28 (31 January 2013)

Loots v Schmidt (2) (1426 of 2011) [2013] NAHCMD 28 (31 January 2013)

The issue of ownership of the raft was finally determined in favour of the plaintiff by a previous judgment, making it res judicata. Only the amendment reflecting this fact (paragraph 3C) is allowed; other proposed amendments are irrelevant.

Citation
[2013] NAHCMD 28
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Loots; Defendant: Martin Schmidt
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Case Number
1426 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Application partly allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Res Judicata, Ownership, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Res Judicata Ownership 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Loots

Plaintiff

Martin Schmidt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his particulars of claim
  2. 2 Whether the issue of ownership of the raft is res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The issue of ownership of the raft was finally determined in favour of the plaintiff by a previous judgment, making it res judicata. Only the amendment reflecting this fact (paragraph 3C) is allowed; other proposed amendments are irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed

Orders

  • Leave granted to plaintiff to amend particulars of claim only as to paragraph 3C
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs, including costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel