Extension 1, Outapi, Republic of Namibia was donated to Taleni Shirley Andjamba. In this regard, the defendant makes the submission that the title deed reflected the plaintiff as an unmarried person. Issues in dispute [5] Essentially the parties to this dispute are not ad idem in terms of the governing regime of the marriage solemnized between them. The divorce action instituted by the plaintiff is based on notion that the marriage took place out of community of property by virtue of the Native Administration Proclamation 15 of 1928 as a marriage solemnized above the Line”. “Red [6] The defendant counterclaimed the plaintiff’s claim, seeking an order declaring the marriage in community of property and to set aside the donations of the aforesaid properties allegedly done without her consent or knowledge. Plaintiff’s submissions [7] The plaintiff takes issue on the fact that the intended amendment application seeks to join third parties that are not parties to the application. The plaintiff makes reference to the defendant’s replying affidavit wherein the defendant indicated that prior to an order of court joining the third parties, there is no requirement to serve those parties. The plaintiff further submits that the approach of the defendant in this regard is premised on the notion that once the three defendants are joined, they shall have an opportunity to defend the counterclaim. The plaintiff in this respect further cites United Africa Group (Pty) Ltd v Uramin Incorporated where Masuku J made the following observation: am accordingly of the considered view that the application for joinder cannot and “I should not be granted in the present circumstances, where the parties affected by it are not cited and have not been served with the application to enable them to place their position before
Extension 1, Outapi, Republic of Namibia was donated to Taleni Shirley Andjamba. In this regard, the defendant makes the submission that the title deed reflected the plaintiff as an unmarried person. Issues in dispute [5] Essentially the parties to this dispute are not ad idem in terms of the governing regime of the marriage solemnized between them. The divorce action instituted by the plaintiff is based on notion that the marriage took place out of community of property by virtue of the Native Administration Proclamation 15 of 1928 as a marriage solemnized above the “Red Line”. [6] The defendant counterclaimed the plaintiff’s claim, seeking an order declaring the marriage in community of property and to set aside the donations of the aforesaid properties allegedly done without her consent or knowledge. Plaintiff’s submissions [7] The plaintiff takes issue on the fact that the intended amendment application seeks to join third parties that are not parties to the application. The plaintiff makes reference to the defendant’s replying affidavit wherein the defendant indicated that prior to an order of court joining the third parties, there is no requirement to serve those parties. The plaintiff further submits that the approach of the defendant in this regard is premised on the notion that once the three defendants are joined, they shall have an opportunity to defend the counterclaim. The plaintiff in this respect further cites United Africa Group (Pty) Ltd v Uramin Incorporated where Masuku J made the following observation: “I am accordingly of the considered view that the application for joinder cannot and should not be granted in the present circumstances, where the parties affected by it are not cited and have not been served with the application to enable them to place their position before