REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: I 174/2013 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE APPLICANT/DEFENDANT and A & R PROPERTIES & SOLAR SUPPLY CC RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Neutral citation: The Minister of Defence v A & R Properties & Supply CC (I 174/2013) [2014] NAHCMD 133 (14 April 2014) Coram: HOFF J Heard: 01 April 2014 Delivered: 14 April 2014 Summary: Applications for rescission of default judgment, removal of bar, leave to defend an application, and extention of time for the filing of pleadings have one common denominator namely the failure by a litigant to act timeously in terms of the rules and who seeks the indulgence of the court to allow such a litigant to proceed with his or her action or defence A court may condone non-compliance where – cause’ has been shown Rule 27 gives a court a wide discretion which must, ‘good – in principle, be exercised with regard to the merits of the matter seen as a whole. Good cause comprises, firstly, of the giving of a reasonable explanation of the non-compliance, sufficiently full, to enable the court to understand how the non-compliance came about and to assess the conduct and motives of a litigant, and secondly, disclosing a bona fide defence, under oath, valid in law, which is
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: I 174/2013 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE APPLICANT/DEFENDANT and A & R PROPERTIES & SOLAR SUPPLY CC RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Neutral citation: The Minister of Defence v A & R Properties & Supply CC (I 174/2013) [2014] NAHCMD 133 (14 April 2014) Coram: HOFF J Heard: 01 April 2014 Delivered: 14 April 2014 Summary: Applications for rescission of default judgment, removal of bar, leave to defend an application, and extention of time for the filing of pleadings have one common denominator namely the failure by a litigant to act timeously in terms of the rules and who seeks the indulgence of the court to allow such a litigant to proceed with his or her action or defence – A court may condone non-compliance where ‘good cause’ has been shown – Rule 27 gives a court a wide discretion which must, in principle, be exercised with regard to the merits of the matter seen as a whole. Good cause comprises, firstly, of the giving of a reasonable explanation of the non-compliance, sufficiently full, to enable the court to understand how the non-compliance came about and to assess the conduct and motives of a litigant, and secondly, disclosing a bona fide defence, under oath, valid in law, which is
The%20Minister%20of%20Defence%20v%20A%20and%20R%20Properties%20and%20Supply%20CC%20(I%20174-2013)%20[2014]%20NAHCMD%20133%20(14%20April%202014).docx