SWAKOPMUND – High Court judge Orben Sibeya has instructed First National Bank Namibia to provide documents for a forensic handwriting examination in response to an ongoing fraud claim by Johanna Kahatjipara against the bank.
Kahatjipara filed a notice of motion, seeking FNB to provide certain documents for forensic examination, as she alleges that her signature was forged for a re-advance of her home loan in 2013. The application also requested the plaintiff’s expert to be allowed to examine the documents using scientific equipment, with a videographer present to document the process, and at a neutral location for safety reasons.
According to court documents, the dispute between Kahatjipara and FNB dates back to 2010 when she entered into an agreement with the bank for a home loan. She claims that an FNB employee completed an application for re-advancement of her home loan in 2013, resulting in a payment of N$60 000 that she never received.
Additionally, she alleges that several gold credit card accounts were fraudulently opened in her name, and her signature was forged on some documents.
“The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the bank for a credit card in February 2009 and was granted a silver credit card account. However, an unknown employee of the defendant completed an application on behalf of the plaintiff for a limit increase from N$8 000 to N$18 000 without her knowledge. The plaintiff contends that the bank and its employees fraudulently inflated her income on the credit increase application form to qualify for a higher credit amount, and her signature was forged on this form, among other things,” reads the court document filed on behalf of Kahatjipara.
She approached the bank in 2017, lodging several complaints, but finding the response unsatisfactory, she issued summons against FNB. As the fraud claim continued, she filed the notice of motion, seeking certain documents for forensic examination.
FNB opposed the application, arguing that the relief sought was vague and unjustified. However, the bank clarified that it had no objection to the plaintiff’s expert examining the documents but was hesitant to hand over the original records due to concerns about the plaintiff’s past behaviour.
“The applicant has already attempted to destroy and deface the very same document she is now asking the court to simply hand over to her,” an affidavit filed on behalf of the bank in April states.
Judge Sibeya ruled that the court considers the rules of court, which allow for examination or inspection of property relevant to a legal matter.
He explained, “however, the rule does not require the property to be handed over but rather made available for examination or inspection. The court noted that the plaintiff’s request for the documents to be handed over to an unknown expert with scientific equipment was not supported by the rule.”
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the examination of the documents but rejected the request for the original documents to be handed over. The defendant was then ordered to make the documents available for examination by the plaintiff’s expert at the bank’s premises. The court also granted the plaintiff’s request to have a videographer present during the examination.
“The defendant must comply with the plaintiff’s/applicant’s notice of motion by no later than 15 August 2023. The documents must remain available for examination or inspection for a period of not more than 10 days from 15 August 2023 at the business premises of the defendant. The plaintiff must give notice to the defendant of the details of the expert, not less than 24 hours prior to the date of examining the documents in question. The plaintiff/applicant is to pay the cost of this application.”