Sash Trading & Earthworks CC v Tsams Construction CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2226 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 420 (18 August 2022)

Sash Trading & Earthworks CC v Tsams Construction CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2226 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 420 (18 August 2022)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the long delay in bringing the rescission application. Lack of funds alone is insufficient, and the applicant did not provide details of efforts to raise funds or explain further delays. Without a reasonable explanation, condonation cannot be granted, and the application must fail.

Citation
[2022] NAHCMD 420
Parties
Applicant: Sash Trading & Earthworks CC; Respondent: Tsams Construction CC
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
18 August 2022
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2226 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (application for Rescission and Condonation) / Ruling on Application for Condonation and Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; costs awarded to respondent; matter finalised and removed from the roll.
Legal Topics
Condonation, Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Condonation Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sash Trading & Earthworks CC

Applicant

Tsams Construction CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (application for Rescission and Condonation) / Ruling on Application for Condonation and Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the rescission application
  2. 2 Whether condonation for late filing should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the long delay in bringing the rescission application. Lack of funds alone is insufficient, and the applicant did not provide details of efforts to raise funds or explain further delays. Without a reasonable explanation, condonation cannot be granted, and the application must fail.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; costs awarded to respondent; matter finalised and removed from the roll.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application for condonation of the late filing of the rescission application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs occasioned by the application for condonation and the application for rescission of default judgment, including costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel.