Pretorius v Profert Civils (PTY) LTD (38 of 2017) [2017] NAHCMD 166 (14 June 2017)

Pretorius v Profert Civils (PTY) LTD (38 of 2017) [2017] NAHCMD 166 (14 June 2017)

The applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property and was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondent, who admitted to the conduct. The application was urgent due to the applicant's limited time in Namibia and lack of alternative accommodation. The ex parte procedure was justified and all material facts were disclosed. Points in limine raised by the respondent were without merit.

Citation
[2017] NAHCMD 166
Parties
Applicant: Rosalé Pretorius; Respondent: Profert Civils (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Case Number
38 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Motion / Ruling on Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Points in Limine
Outcome
Rule nisi confirmed; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Urgent Applications, Possession, Ex Parte Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Spoliation Urgent Applications Possession Ex Parte Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosalé Pretorius

Applicant

Profert Civils (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Ruling on Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully dispossessed the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the application was urgent

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property and was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondent, who admitted to the conduct. The application was urgent due to the applicant's limited time in Namibia and lack of alternative accommodation. The ex parte procedure was justified and all material facts were disclosed. Points in limine raised by the respondent were without merit.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi confirmed; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is confirmed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.