Veldman and Another v Bester (3329 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 203 (14 July 2011)

Veldman and Another v Bester (3329 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 203 (14 July 2011)

The court held that Rule 32(4) expressly prohibits the filing of further affidavits by the plaintiff in summary judgment proceedings, and the applicants failed to show good or sufficient cause for condonation under Rule 27(3). There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The defendant's affidavit disclosed bona fide defences that, if established at trial, would answer the plaintiffs' claim. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 203
Parties
First Plaintiff: Andries Petrus Veldman; Second Plaintiff: Leonora Veldman; Defendant: Murray Hendrik Bester
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Case Number
3329 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Interlocutory Application and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to file further affidavit dismissed; summary judgment application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Affidavit Filing, Inherent Jurisdiction, Condonation, Banking Law
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Affidavit Filing Inherent Jurisdiction Condonation Banking Law

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 22 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 / Ruling on Interlocutory Application and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a further affidavit in summary judgment proceedings contrary to Rule 32(4)
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted in light of the defendant's affidavit under Rule 32(3)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 32(4) expressly prohibits the filing of further affidavits by the plaintiff in summary judgment proceedings, and the applicants failed to show good or sufficient cause for condonation under Rule 27(3). There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The defendant's affidavit disclosed bona fide defences that, if established at trial, would answer the plaintiffs' claim. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file further affidavit dismissed; summary judgment application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to file further affidavit dismissed.
  • Application for summary judgment dismissed.