REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORAE) Case no: A 231/2013 In the matter between: CHARLES ALBERTUS CORNELIUS DIERGAARDT APPLICANT and THE MAGISTRATE: MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF GOBABIS FIRST RESPONDENT VALENTIA ELSABE DIERGAARDT SECOND RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Diergaardt v The Magistrate: Magisterial District of Gobabis (A 231/2013) [2013] NAHCMD 231 (1 August 2013) PARKER AJ Coram: Heard: 31 July 2013 Delivered: 1 August 2013 Flynote: Practice Applications and motions Urgent applications Granting of – – – application to hear matter on urgent basis is an indulgence To succeed in an – application applicant must satisfy the two requirements prescribed by rule 6(12)(b) of the rules of court No urgency where urgency is self-created. – Summary: Practice Applications and motions Urgent applications Applicant – – – sought urgent relief aimed at principally the court staying proceedings in the lower court for discharging or confirming an interim protection order granted by the lower court in terms of the Combating of Domestic Violence Act 4 of 2003 Court found – that the applicant has not given any reason why the applicant could not obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course and has not set them out explicitly the circumstances the applicant avers makes the matter urgent Court held that – applicant could receive substantial redress in due course in the ongoing enquiry
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORAE) Case no: A 231/2013 In the matter between: CHARLES ALBERTUS CORNELIUS DIERGAARDT APPLICANT and THE MAGISTRATE: MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF GOBABIS FIRST RESPONDENT VALENTIA ELSABE DIERGAARDT SECOND RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Diergaardt v The Magistrate: Magisterial District of Gobabis (A 231/2013) [2013] NAHCMD 231 (1 August 2013) Coram: PARKER AJ Heard: 31 July 2013 Delivered: 1 August 2013 Flynote: Practice – Applications and motions – Urgent applications – Granting of application to hear matter on urgent basis is an indulgence – To succeed in an application applicant must satisfy the two requirements prescribed by rule 6(12)(b) of the rules of court – No urgency where urgency is self-created. Summary: Practice – Applications and motions – Urgent applications – Applicant sought urgent relief aimed at principally the court staying proceedings in the lower court for discharging or confirming an interim protection order granted by the lower court in terms of the Combating of Domestic Violence Act 4 of 2003 – Court found that the applicant has not given any reason why the applicant could not obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course and has not set them out explicitly the circumstances the applicant avers makes the matter urgent – Court held that applicant could receive substantial redress in due course in the ongoing enquiry