GERSON HOVEKA vs STANDARD BANK LTD & 3 OTHER
HEARD ON: 1997/02/04 DELIVERED ON: 1997/02/07
Application by way of Notice of Motion for a Rule nisi to restrain a sale in execution and to set aside the proceedings for such sale.
Original opposition withdrawn, rule ni si granted in terms of Notice of Motion and tender of costs by certain respondents.
CASE NO. A 19/97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA
In the matter between
STANDARD BANK LTD
R6SSING URANIUM LTD
THE DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE
DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK
THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT
Eeard on: 1957 . C2 . 04
.elivered or.: 1997. C2. 0 7
LEVY, A.J. : On the 4th of
2curt on net ice cf motion for
at this staae tc
app_itar.t came tc relief which it i; Or. chat date th<
i ^ r* s> c c a t"
: at ior. was ocrcsea n\
By agreement the parties settled the time schedule applicable to the times for filing an opposition and replying affidavits and the matter stood down to be heard at
This morning the Court was advised that first and second
respondents had withdrawn its opposition and in fact a document has been filed in terms whereof it is recorded that first, second and third respondents have withdrawn their opposition to the applicant's application and that they tender costs to date on a party and party basis.
Applicant persists in its application ana asks for a judgment in terms of its notice of motion. In view of the fact that respondents were served and were represented in this Court and had withdrawn their opposition, this Court
now orders that a rule nisi do issue returnable March, 1957 in terms of paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.2, ar.d 2.5 of the notice of motion. Furthermore it is that in terms of paragraph 2 of the notice of mot the order shall operate as an interim interdict res the transfer of the said property as set out in th cf motion.
At this stage it is advisable to record again that t tc date have been tendered by first, second an respondents. This is irrespective ci the fact tha' hearing hereof the costs will nave to be considered i.e. the costs as from today's date.
The order operates as an interim interdict as applied for in terms of the notice of motion.
LEVY, 'ACTING JUDGE
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: ADV R T6TEMEYER
Instructed by: B Bloch
ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST &
SECOND RESPONDENTS: ADV J SWANEPOEL
Instructed by: Lorentz & Bone