Veldman and Another v Bester (3329 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 39 (17 February 2011)

Veldman and Another v Bester (3329 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 39 (17 February 2011)

Both the plaintiffs' and defendant's Rule 30 applications were dismissed. The plaintiffs' application was dismissed because Rule 30 allows a party to bring an application to set aside an irregular step at any stage, and there is no requirement to await a declaration or serve a notice of bar. The defendant's application was dismissed because the plaintiffs' simple summons, though concise, provided sufficient clarity and particularity to inform the defendant of the case to meet and did not amount to a nullity. The requirements for a simple summons are less stringent than for a declaration, and the defendant was not prejudiced in his ability to respond.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 39
Parties
First Plaintiff: Andries Petrus Veldman; Second Plaintiff: Leonora Veldman; Defendant: Murray Hendrik Bester
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
17 February 2011
Case Number
3329 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (rule 30) and Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Both Rule 30 applications dismissed; summary judgment application postponed.
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Applications, Summary Judgment, Simple Summons, Pleadings, Irregular Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Applications Summary Judgment Simple Summons Pleadings Irregular 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 3 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Petrus Veldman

First Plaintiff

Leonora Veldman

Second Plaintiff

Murray Hendrik Bester

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (rule 30) and Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' Rule 30 application to set aside the defendant's Rule 30 application was competent
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's Rule 30 application to set aside the plaintiffs' simple summons was competent
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' simple summons complied with the rules and sufficiently informed the defendant of the case to meet

Ratio Decidendi

Both the plaintiffs' and defendant's Rule 30 applications were dismissed. The plaintiffs' application was dismissed because Rule 30 allows a party to bring an application to set aside an irregular step at any stage, and there is no requirement to await a declaration or serve a notice of bar. The defendant's application was dismissed because the plaintiffs' simple summons, though concise, provided sufficient clarity and particularity to inform the defendant of the case to meet and did not amount to a nullity. The requirements for a simple summons are less stringent than for a declaration, and the defendant was not prejudiced in his ability to respond.

Court Disposition

Both Rule 30 applications dismissed; summary judgment application postponed.

Orders

  • First and Second Plaintiffs’ application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed with costs, including the cost of one instructed and one instructing counsel.
  • Defendant’s application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed with costs, including the costs of one instructed and one instructing counsel.