- October 13, 2023
- |Civil Law, Practice, And Procedure, Concise Law Reports (CLR)
The applicant, acting as the deputy sheriff for the district of Windhoek, had attached movable property, specifically goods listed in the Interpleader Notice, in favor of the first claimant. However, the second claimant, who appeared in person during these proceedings, asserted his ownership of the same movable property. Notably, the first claimant acknowledged the second claimant’s ownership of certain items from the list, which included a Defy Chest Freezer, a Hisense Flat-Screen TV, and a Black Leather 2-Seater Benedict Couch.
The central issue in these interpleader proceedings revolved around the second claimant’s ability to substantiate his ownership of the contested movable property. The guiding legal principles in interpleader proceedings were well-established and had been summarized by Schimming-Chase AJ in the case of Deputy Sheriff of Tsumeb v Koch and Another. According to these principles, a claimant was obligated to outline the particulars of their claim, including the essential facts forming the basis of that claim. It was emphasized that the burden of proof lay with a third party, like the second claimant, who asserted ownership of goods attached by the deputy sheriff, primarily due to the presumption of ownership based on possession.
In this case, the goods had been attached at the execution debtor’s domicilium citandi et executandi, and the second claimant was responsible for demonstrating the legitimacy of his ownership claim. This was particularly important given the presumption of ownership that arose from his possession of the property. The key question was whether the second claimant had presented adequate and compelling evidence to support his claim to the attached property.
Regrettably, the second respondent failed to submit any documents to discharge the burden of proof imposed on the second claimant. Furthermore, the oral submission provided by the second respondent proved to be insufficient in establishing a convincing case for the second claimant’s ownership. Consequently, the court accepted Mr. Ulrich’s submission on this matter, as it was the more convincing and well-substantiated argument.
As a result, the second claimant’s claim for ownership of the attached property was dismissed. Consequently, the court issued an order prohibiting the second claimant and anyone claiming through them from making any further claims on the attached property, except for the specific items mentioned, namely the Defy Chest Freezer, Hisense Flat-Screen TV, and Black Leather 2-Seater Benedict Couch. Additionally, the second claimant was ordered to bear the costs of both the first claimant and the applicant in this legal proceeding.