Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Namibia decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Von Luttichau and Others v Van Straten N.O. and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 301 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 365 (26 July 2022)
High Court decision refusing rescission of an ex parte order establishing a commission of enquiry in three liquidations.
Van Wyk v Matrix Mining (Pty) Ltd [2020] NAHCNLD 109 (19 August 2020)
The High Court discharged an urgent ex parte rule nisi after finding material non-disclosure, unauthenticated foreign documents, hearsay, and no competent jurisdictional relief.
Atlantic Ocean Management Group (PTY) LTD and Another v The Prosecutor-General (17 of 2017) [2017] NAHCMD 255 (6 September 2017)
The High Court set aside a second ex parte preservation order over funds in a CFC account, finding improper discretion and material non-disclosure by the Prosecutor-General.
Prosecutor- General v Taapopi (25 of 2015) [2017] NASC 21 (19 June 2017)
Regulation 7(b) does not apply to ex parte applications for property preservation orders under section 51(2) of the POCA. The High Court erred in discharging the rule nisi on procedural grounds. Reasonable grounds exist to believe the property is the proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically fraud and money laundering. The statutory test is met and the preservation order must be granted.
Source excerpt
Ondonga Traditional Authority v Elifas and Another (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-EXP 13 of 2017) [2017] NAHCMD 142 (15 May 2017)
The High Court struck an urgent ex parte application from the roll after finding no proper authority for the applicant and no basis for hearing it in camera.
Ken Investments Close Corporation v Rouwans Investments CC (APPEAL 297 of 2015) [2016] NAHCMD 51 (3 March 2016)
The applicant failed to disclose material facts regarding its control over the first respondent’s bank account and unauthorized transfers, breaching the duty of utmost good faith required in ex parte urgent applications. This non-disclosure warranted dismissal of the application and discharge of the rule nisi.
Source excerpt
Baker v Messenger of Court for District of Walvis Bay (APPEAL 309 of 2015) [2015] NAHCMD 286 (23 November 2015)
The applicant failed to act in utmost good faith by not making full and proper disclosure of the pending application (June 2015 application), which constituted lis alibi pendens. This non-disclosure was material and would have influenced the court's decision to grant the ex parte order. The rule nisi was therefore discharged and the application dismissed.
Source excerpt
Kwouwds v Josea and Another (PA 227 of 2005) [2007] NAHC 99 (11 December 2007)
The High Court of Namibia held that non-service of the full ex parte sequestration application was fatal and discharged the rule nisi with attorney-and-own-client costs.
Doeseb and Others v Kheibeb and Others (SA 14 of 2004) [2006] NASC 2 (1 February 2006)
The Supreme Court of Namibia dismissed most of an appeal seeking to remove a member from a close corporation, but set aside a punitive costs order.
Bourgwells Ltd v Shepovalov and Others (CA 33 of 1998) [1999] NAHC 10 (14 September 1999)
The appellant established a prima facie case for attachment to found jurisdiction, including damages suffered and common purpose among respondents. The right sought to be attached, though situated abroad, could be effectively attached within the Court's jurisdiction. The ex parte procedure was proper and settled practice. The alleged stratagem was not a ground to refuse relief. The appeal was upheld and the Rule Nisi confirmed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
