11.2 That is was necessary or reasonable to store the vehicle as aforesaid. On this issue expert evidence may well be required. 11.3 That it was necessary or reasonable to have stored the vehicle specifically at a cost of N$100.00 per day plus VAT, in to advance the plaintiff’s interest. 11.4 That the necessary or reasonable expense to store the vehicle indeed amounted to N$100.00 per day. Expert evidence on this issue will also be required. 11.5 That the plaintiff was enriched at the expense of the defendant (or at least at the expense or her alleged predecessor in rights Mr. Arangies) to the extent of N$100.00 per day plus VAT and for the aforementioned period. 12. It is submitted that it requires little analysis to conclude that the principles and evidence that underlie the aforementioned two claims are vastly different from another. The same applies to the additional claim of N$7 350.00 that arises from a towing-in cost of the vehicle from Oshakati to Tsumeb during 2007 (as referred to above). The latter aspect will further be dealt with in argument. 13. In this vein it is submitted that it is with respect, quite artificial to argue (as the defendant does) that the claims are substantially the same, simply because they were all subject to the same alleged cession by Mr. Arangies to the defendant (see: Paragraph 20.3 of the defendant’s heads): The basis of these claims and the facts underlying same, are substantially different.’ [35] In my view this comparison demonstrates clearly that the differences between the original counter-claim and those claims, the applicant seeks to introduce, are so substantial, as to translate the additional claims, into different, or substantially different rights of action, even if one considers, what these claims are all about, in the broad sense of the word. [36] It also clearly emerges that the probanda, necessary to prove the original counter- claim, are vastly different from those that underpin the two new claims, which the applicant seeks to introduce, by way of amendment. In my view the additional claims simply do not relate, sufficiently, to the same set of material facts that beget the applicant’s original right of action.
11.2 That is was necessary or reasonable to store the vehicle as aforesaid. On this issue expert evidence may well be required. 11.3 That it was necessary or reasonable to have stored the vehicle specifically at a cost of N$100.00 per day plus VAT, in to advance the plaintiff’s interest. 11.4 That the necessary or reasonable expense to store the vehicle indeed amounted to N$100.00 per day. Expert evidence on this issue will also be required. 11.5 That the plaintiff was enriched at the expense of the defendant (or at least at the expense or her alleged predecessor in rights Mr. Arangies) to the extent of N$100.00 per day plus VAT and for the aforementioned period. 12. It is submitted that it requires little analysis to conclude that the principles and evidence that underlie the aforementioned two claims are vastly different from another. The same applies to the additional claim of N$7 350.00 that arises from a towing-in cost of the vehicle from Oshakati to Tsumeb during 2007 (as referred to above). The latter aspect will further be dealt with in argument. 13. In this vein it is submitted that it is with respect, quite artificial to argue (as the defendant does) that the claims are substantially the same, simply because they were all subject to the same alleged cession by Mr. Arangies to the defendant (see: Paragraph 20.3 of the defendant’s heads): The basis of these claims and the facts underlying same, are substantially different.’ [35] In my view this comparison demonstrates clearly that the differences between the original counter-claim and those claims, the applicant seeks to introduce, are so substantial, as to translate the additional claims, into different, or substantially different rights of action, even if one considers, what these claims are all about, in the broad sense of the word. [36] It also clearly emerges that the probanda, necessary to prove the original counter- claim, are vastly different from those that underpin the two new claims, which the applicant seeks to introduce, by way of amendment. In my view the additional claims simply do not relate, sufficiently, to the same set of material facts that beget the applicant’s original right of action.
Standard%20Bank%20Namibia%20Limited%20v%20Hartzenberg%20and%20others%20(I%2013512012)%202015%20NAHCMD%20137%20(11%20July%202014).docx