The court a quo should have declared the immovable property specially executable since there was no viable alternative or less drastic measure other than a sale in execution. The appeal succeeds and the order of the court a quo striking the matter from the roll is set aside and substituted with one declaring the immovable property of the first respondent specially executable. ____________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________ HOFF JA (CHOMBA AJA and MOKGORO AJA concurring): This is an appeal against the order of the High Court striking from the roll an application to declare immovable property specially executable. The grounds of appeal were that the learned judge erred in law and/or facts in that: He struck the application from the roll; He failed to declare the immovable property belonging to the First Respondent executable; He failed to have regard to the fact that the registered bond in favour of the Appellant, constitutes as envisaged in Article 16 of the ‘property’ Constitution of the Republic of Namibia and/or common law rights agreed upon (and registered) between the Appellant and the First Respondent. In
The court a quo should have declared the immovable property specially executable since there was no viable alternative or less drastic measure other than a sale in execution. The appeal succeeds and the order of the court a quo striking the matter from the roll is set aside and substituted with one declaring the immovable property of the first respondent specially executable. ____________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________ HOFF JA (CHOMBA AJA and MOKGORO AJA concurring): This is an appeal against the order of the High Court striking from the roll an application to declare immovable property specially executable. The grounds of appeal were that the learned judge erred in law and/or facts in that: He struck the application from the roll; He failed to declare the immovable property belonging to the First Respondent executable; He failed to have regard to the fact that the registered bond in favour of the Appellant, constitutes ‘property’ as envisaged in Article 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia and/or common law rights agreed upon (and registered) between the Appellant and the First Respondent. In
Standard%20Bank%20Namibia%20Limited%20v%20Shipila%20(SA%2069-2015)%20[2018]%20NASC%20(6%20July%202018).docx