Maletzky and Others v Standard Bank Namibia Ltd and Others (2) (27 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 217 (31 July 2012)

# Maletzky and Others v Standard Bank Namibia Ltd and Others (2) (27 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 217 (31 July 2012) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from NamibLII: Maletzky and Others v Standard Bank Namibia …&body=https://namiblii.org/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31) [ Download RTF (579.4 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download RTF (579.4 KB) ](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31/source) * [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Maletzky and Others v Standard Bank Namibia Ltd and Others (2) (27 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 217 (31 July 2012) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Maletzky and Others v Standard Bank Namibia Ltd and Others (2) (27 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 217 (31 July 2012) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2012] NAHC 217 Copy Court [High Court](/judgments/NAHC/) Case number 27 of 2012 Judges [Miller AJ](/judgments/all/?judges=Miller%20AJ) Judgment date 31 July 2012 Language English Other documents [Download PDF](/akn/na/judgment/nahc/2012/217/eng@2012-07-31/attachment/maletzky-and-others-v-standard-bank-namibia-ltd-and-others-2-2012-nahc-217-31-july-2012.pdf) (387.1 KB) * * * Skip to document content **CASE NO.: A 27/2012** # # _REPORTABLE_ # # IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between: **AUGUST MALETZKY 1****ST****APPLICANT** **WILMA EVELINE HOABES 2****ND****APPLICANT** **SALMAAN DHAMEER JACOBS 3****RD****APPLICANT** **ANNARINE JACOBS 4****TH****APPLICANT** **CALISTA ANNA BALZER 5****TH****APPLICANT** **RONNEY REINHOLD HANGULA 6****TH****APPLICANT** **SIEGFRIED BROCKERHOFF 7****TH****APPLICANT** **EVANGELINE EICHAB 8****TH****APPLICANT** **DORKA VICTORINE SHIKONGO 9****TH****APPLICANT** **EDUARD PAUL XOAGUB 10****TH****APPLICANT** **FRANCIS EVELINE XOAGUS 11****TH****APPLICANT** **ABRAHAM MAPELA PETRUS 12****TH****APPLICANT** **ROMEO MOUTON 13****TH****APPLICANT** **ANTON HERMANN 14****TH****APPLICANT** **JOHANNES NEUAKA 15****TH****APPLICANT** **LISA RHODE 16****TH****APPLICANT** **FILIMON HOXOBEB 17****TH****APPLICANT** **FRANCOIS DARIES 18****TH****APPLICANT** **FRANS NAIBAB 19****TH****APPLICANT** **ISABELLA ISABEAU 20****TH****APPLICANT** **CORISTOFFEL STEENKAMP 21****ST****APPLICANT** **KATRINA FRANCINA STEENKAMP 22****ND****APPLICANT** **LAZARUS GAROEB 23****RD****APPLICANT** **ANNA MARIE HENDRIKS 24****TH****APPLICANT** **VICKSON HANGULA 25****TH****APPLICANT** **GAFENI HAIKOTI 26****TH****APPLICANT** **PAULINA GARISES 27****TH****APPLICANT** **PHILLIPUS GARISEB 28****TH****APPLICANT** **JOHANNES HAGGINS AUPAPA NIIGAMBO 29****TH****APPLICANT** and **STANDARD BANK NAMIBIA LIMITED 1****ST****RESPONDENT** **NEDBANK NAMIBIA LIMITED 2****ND****RESPONDENT** **HES SHIKONGO 3****RD****RESPONDENT** **FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAMIBIA LIMITED 4****TH****RESPONDENT** **WINDHOEK MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL 5****TH****RESPONDENT** **SWABOU INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 6****TH****RESPONDENT** **VSV ENTERPRISES NUMBER SIXTY CC AND/OR** **NOMINEE J P VAN STADEN OR L J VAN STADEN 7****TH****RESPONDENT** **ALEXANDER HOVEKA 8****TH****RESPONDENT** **HARTMUST GERHARD FOELSCHER 9****TH****RESPONDENT** **MINISTER OF JUSTICE 10****TH****RESPONDENT** **REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT 11****TH****RESPONDENT** **CLERK OF THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT 12****TH****RESPONDENT** **REGISTRAR OF DEEDS 13****TH****RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY-GENERAL 14****TH****RESPONDENT** **THE DEPUTY-SHERIFF 15****TH****RESPONDENT** **VAN DER MERWE-GREEFF INC. 16****TH****RESPONDENT** **BANK WINDHOEK LIMITED 17****TH****RESPONDENT** **SOUTH WEST AFRICAN BUILDING SOCIETY 18****TH****RESPONDENT** **RISTO SHIKULO 19****TH****RESPONDENT** **JULIA THANDU NEUAKA 20****TH****RESPONDENT** **GERARDT DE KLERK 21****ST****RESPONDENT** **SHARON DE KLERK 22****ND****RESPONDENT** **BANK OF NAMIBIA 23****RD****RESPONDENT** **BOY TOBIAS VAN WYK 24****TH****RESPONDENT** **MORVEN M LUSWENYO 25****TH****RESPONDENT** **BUILDERS WAREHOUSE (PTY) LTD 26****TH****RESPONDENT** **ANTHONY ABRAHAMS 27****TH****RESPONDENT** **ABRAHAM GARISEB 28****TH****RESPONDENT** **MIEMIE GENGOS 29****TH****RESPONDENT** **PETRUS VILJOEN 30****TH****RESPONDENT** **DAWID JOHANNES WERNER 31****ST****RESPONDENT** **WILLEM KARUOOMBE 32****ND****RESPONDENT** **ELVISIA KARUOOMBE 33****RD****RESPONDENT** **IVAN JOSEPH CECIL DROTSKY 34****TH****RESPONDENT** **NATIONAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE 35****TH****RESPONDENT** **RONALDT KAPUOO 36****TH****RESPONDENT** **WOERMAN BROCK & CO. WINDHOEK (PTY) LTD 37****TH****RESPONDENT** **CONSTANCE MBAPAHA 38****TH****RESPONDENT** **SAM HALUPE 39****TH****RESPONDENT** **ADRIAAN MICHAU BASSON 40****TH****RESPONDENT** **CORAM: MILLER, AJ** Heard on: 03 July 2012 Delivered on: 31 July 2012 **JUDGMENT** _**MILLER, AJ.:**_ [1] This is an interlocutory matter in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules of this Court. [2] The application is directed at what certain of the respondents allege are irregular steps taken by the applicants when they instituted motion proceedings against them and several other respondents. [3] At the hearing before me Mr. Totemeyer SC together with Mr. Obbes appeared for the 1st, 6th and 18th respondents. Mr. Totemeyer SC together with Ms. van der Westhuizen also appeared for the 5th respondent. Mr. Mouton appeared for the second respondent. The first and 10th applicants appeared in person to oppose the matter. [4] As matters turned out I heard submissions from Mr. Totemeyer only on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Mouton associated himself with the submissions made by Mr. Totemeyer. Mr. Maletzky, the first applicant was the only applicant to address me at the hearing. [5] The first applicant submitted as a first point in limine that there was no clarity as to which legal practitioners had been instituted by the respondents. He went on to challenge the authority of the legal practitioners to act on behalf of the respondents and submitted that it was incumbent upon the legal practitioners to file a power of attorney authorizing them to appear and act on behalf of the respondents. I need not dwell on this point save to say it has no merit [6] There is no such requirement in motion proceedings. The point taken is dismissed. [7] In turn to consider the grounds advanced by Mr. Totemeyer I bear in mind that in so doing, I have discretion to grant or refuse the relief sought. My discretion must be exercised judicially, and based upon a consideration of all the circumstances and what is fair to both sides. _**Northern Assurance Co. Ltd v Somdaka 1960 (1) SA 588 A.**_ [8] A Court will be entitled to condone in appropriate circumstances irregularities which do not have as their result that the other party is prejudiced by such irregularities. [9] In _**SA Lewensversekering v Leuw NO 1981 (4) SA 329 (O)**__Flemm_ ing J, held that: “...the exercise of the Court’s discretion has been consistently led by the presence or absence of prejudice in relation to the exercise of a party’s procedural right or duty to respond to a communication received, or to the taking of a next step in the sequence of permissible procedures to ripen the matter for properly orderly hearing. Where such prejudice is absent, a decision to set the irregular proceeding aside should not be granted.” [10] Likewise in _**Trans-African Insurance Co. Ltd v Mololeka 1956 (2) SA 273 (A)**_ the Court stated at page 278 F the following: “No doubt parties and their legal practitioners should not be encouraged to become slack in the observance of the Rules, which are an important element in the machinery for the administration of justice. But on the other hand technical objections to less than perfect procedural steps should not be permitted in the absence of prejudice to interfere with the expeditious and, if possible, inexpensive decision of cases on their real merits.” [11] I do not deem it necessary to deal exhaustively with each of the steps taken by the applicants which the respondents contend are irregular. I am prepared to accept that individually and collectively, the steps taken and complained of are to a greater or lesser degree irregular thus rendering the papers filed by the applicants less than perfect. [12] However when looking at the papers as a whole imperfect as they may be, none of the respondents who complain about them, can show that they are prejudiced by these irregularities. [13] In the result the applications are dismissed with costs, such costs to be limited to necessary expenses and disbursements. __________ **MILLER AJ** **ON BEHALF OF THE 1****ST**** & 10****TH****APPLICANTS:** Appearing in person **ON BEHALF OF THE 1****ST****, 6****TH**** & 18****TH****RESPONDENTS:** Mr. Totemeyer assisted by Mr. Obbes **INSTRUCTED BY:** Fisher, Quarmby & Pfeifer **ON BEHALF OF THE 5****TH****RESPONDENT:** Mr. Totemeyer assisted by Ms. van der Westhuizen **INSTRUCTED BY:** Etzold-Duvenhage **ON BEHALF OF THE 2****ND****RESPONDENT:** Mr. Mouton **INSTRUCTED BY:** Koep & Partners #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >