second respondent. Second respondent has now repossessed the said land against compensation to the applicant as heir to the estate. First respondent opposed such a decision and argued that all the children should receive compensation in equal shares as they are heirs of the late Henock Haufiku. At the hearing, applicant made a concession to the effect that all the surviving children should benefit. Application is dismissed with costs. ORDER The application is dismissed. Second respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay compensation to all the surviving children of the late Henock Haufiku in equal shares. Each party to pay its own costs. JUDGMENT CHEDA J: [1] On the 14 April 2014 applicant lodged an application on motion and claimed the following relief: Interdicting and restraining the Second Respondent from paying out the remainder of the compensation amount to any person other than the Applicant as the rightful heir of the late Henock Haufiku; Directing and declaring the appointment of the First Respondent, by the Third Respondent in terms of Section 2 (a) of the Government Notice 70 of 1954, under Letter of Executorship number 7/1/2-113/2013 and dated the 17th of June 2013 to be null and void ab initio; Directing and declaring the Applicant to be the rightful heir in and to the estate of the late Henock Haufiku and as such entitled to receive payment of the remainder of the compensation amount from the Second Respondent; Costs of suit; and
second respondent. Second respondent has now repossessed the said land against compensation to the applicant as heir to the estate. First respondent opposed such a decision and argued that all the children should receive compensation in equal shares as they are heirs of the late Henock Haufiku. At the hearing, applicant made a concession to the effect that all the surviving children should benefit. Application is dismissed with costs. ORDER The application is dismissed. Second respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay compensation to all the surviving children of the late Henock Haufiku in equal shares. Each party to pay its own costs. JUDGMENT CHEDA J: [1] On the 14 April 2014 applicant lodged an application on motion and claimed the following relief: Interdicting and restraining the Second Respondent from paying out the remainder of the compensation amount to any person other than the Applicant as the rightful heir of the late Henock Haufiku; Directing and declaring the appointment of the First Respondent, by the Third Respondent in terms of Section 2 (a) of the Government Notice 70 of 1954, under Letter of Executorship number 7/1/2-113/2013 and dated the 17th of June 2013 to be null and void ab initio; Directing and declaring the Applicant to be the rightful heir in and to the estate of the late Henock Haufiku and as such entitled to receive payment of the remainder of the compensation amount from the Second Respondent; Costs of suit; and
heita%20v%20nuuyoma%20(a%2007-2014)%20[2015]%20nahcnld%2035%20(28%20july%202015).docx