Hoveka v Standard Bank Ltd and Others (APPEAL 19 of 1997) [1997] NAHC 3 (7 February 1997)


GERSON HOVEKA vs STANDARD BANK LTD & 3 OTHER


A 19/97



HEARD ON: 1997/02/04 DELIVERED ON: 1997/02/07


JUDGMENT


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Original opposition withdrawn, rule ni si granted in terms of Notice of Motion and tender of costs by certain respondents.



c;


CASE NO. A 19/97


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA


In the matter between



GERSON HOVEKA

versus

STANDARD BANK LTD

R6SSING URANIUM LTD

THE DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE

DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK

THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS


APPLICANT



FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT


THIRD RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT



LEVY, A.J.


:ORAMi



Eeard on: 1957 . C2 . 04

.elivered or.: 1997. C2. 0 7



JUDGMENT

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<


6e


i ^ r* s> c c a t"



: at ior. was ocrcsea n\


resooncent;


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respondents had withdrawn its opposition and in fact a document has been filed in terms whereof it is recorded that first, second and third respondents have withdrawn their opposition to the applicant's application and that they tender costs to date on a party and party basis.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 In view of the fact that respondents were served and were represented in this Court and had withdrawn their opposition, this Court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



▲ To the top