Van Herzeele and Another v Epacha Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd (PA 172 of 2005) [2005] NAHC 35 (10 October 2005)

Van Herzeele and Another v Epacha Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd (PA 172 of 2005) [2005] NAHC 35 (10 October 2005)

Applicants failed to provide any reasonable explanation for ignoring the summonses, amounting to willful default or gross negligence. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, the court cannot assist applicants who deliberately disregard court process. No good cause was shown for rescission.

Citation
[2005] NAHC 35
Parties
1st Applicant: Charles Gaston Albert Angele Van Herzeele; 2nd Applicant: Sharlae Holley; Respondent: Epacha Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
10 October 2005
Case Number
PA 172 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Willful Default, Reasonable Explanation for Default
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Willful Default Reasonable Explanation for Default

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Gaston Albert Angele Van Herzeele

1st Applicant

Sharlae Holley

2nd Applicant

Epacha Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were in willful default
  3. 3 Whether good cause was shown for rescission of default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to provide any reasonable explanation for ignoring the summonses, amounting to willful default or gross negligence. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, the court cannot assist applicants who deliberately disregard court process. No good cause was shown for rescission.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for rescission of two default judgments obtained against the applicants on 7 April 2005 and 11 April 2005 respectively is hereby dismissed with costs.