Makoka v Schroeder (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2024/00498) [2024] NAHCMD 603 (4 October 2024)


REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK


JUDGMENT


Case Title:


Junias Kaulimonua Makoka Applicant


and


Breeze Schroeder Respondent

Case No:

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2024/00498

Division of Court:

High Court, Main Division

Coram:

Honourable Justice Schimming-Chase

Heard on:

4 October 2024

Delivered on:

4 October 2024

Neutral citation: Makoka v Schroeder (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2024/00498) [2024] NAHCMD 591 (4 October 2024)

Order:


  1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.



  1. There shall be no order as to costs.



  1. The matter is finalised and removed from the roll.

Reasons:


SCHIMMING-CHASE J:


  1. Serving before court is an application for eviction of the respondent on an urgent basis.



  1. The applicant alleges that he is the owner of Erf 561, Tiptol Street Khomasdal (‘the property’). A copy of a deed of transfer in respect of the property and in the applicant’s name, with transfer number T4630/2023 is attached to the founding papers.


  1. The applicant alleges that since he became the owner of the property on 21 August 2023, he has been struggling with receiving rental payments from the respondent. Given that rent was not being paid, a demand was made to vacate the property in December 2023. Rent was due on 10 January 2024 but payment has allegedly not been made. According to the applicant, things came to a head in August 2024 with rental payments not being made, and an urgent application was brought for eviction.


  1. An opposition was noted by one Mr Friedrich Willy Schroeder, indicating that he is not Breeze Schroeder and that he was wrongly cited, but he admitted in court that he resides at the aforementioned property.


  1. It is the trite that an applicant for urgent relief is required by the rules of court to set forth explicitly the circumstances which render the matter urgent and the reasons why he or she cannot be afforded substantial redress in due course. (Emphasis supplied).


  1. The failure to pay rent is coming since August 2023, and this has a negative effect on urgency.


  1. The applicant does have substantial redress which can be exercised in due course, and that is to sue the respondent for eviction under rule 7 of the rules of court, amongst other rules.


  1. Therefore, a case for urgency is not made out and the matter must on that basis be struck from the roll and I make the following order:


  1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.



  1. There shall be no order as to costs.



  1. The matter is finalised and removed from the roll.

Judge’s signature

Note to the parties:





None

Counsel:

Applicant

Respondent


In person


No appearance


▲ To the top