WINDHOEK – High Court Judge Dave Smuts began to hear oral arguments yesterday in the case in which two men are suing the Windhoek City Council over the demolition of their shack in Goreangab informal settlement late last month.
Judge Smuts ordered last week Friday that lawyers for the parties present oral arguments since the Windhoek City Council is disputing that high school teacher Lukas Junias and his brother, Lineekela Tuhafeni Nhinda, who is employed in the Ministry of Health and Social Services, were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the piece of land on which they erected a corrugated iron structure.
Junias and Nhinda are asking the court to order the council to restore their possession and occupation of a plot of land in the Goreangab area and to stop its employees from demolishing and removing any structure or building belonging to them, or evicting them, from that piece of land.
During yesterday’s proceedings Thabang Phatela for the Windhoek City Council argued the applicants were not evicted from the land itself, but that the illegal structure they erected was dismantled and removed. This, he said, rendered their case mute as the relief they seek cannot be granted by the court as it will amount to the court giving them ‘carte blanche’ permission to erect shacks on land that does not belong to them.
He said the council has no issue with the applicant’s occupation of the land in question, but with the possession and construction thereon.
Norman Tjombe who lodged the urgent application on behalf of Junias and Nhinda called Junias to testify and he informed the court he had been staying at the plot since April 2012 when he and his brother Nhinda moved in with another family that already was in occupation of the plot. He said that the previous occupant, Erastus Sheya, erected a structure on the land, but as it became dilapidated he decided to build a bigger home around the existing small structure. This, he said, began in November/December last year when he and some helpers put up the steel corners of the dwelling until he went to the north for the festive season.
On his return in January this year, Junias said, he continued with the completion of the dwelling by adding the sides and the roof.
All the while he was in possession of the structure, he maintained. He denied that the structure was abandoned and unoccupied as the council claims, saying that his neighbours can attest to the fact that he resided there.
In cross-examination, defence counsel Phatela pulled a rabbit out of the hat when he produced NaTIS documents in which Junias registered his vehicle under a different address as to the one in question. He wanted to know from Junias why he did not provide the address he claimed to have occupied for more than two years when he registered his vehicle.
Junias replied that he could not do that as the area where he stayed was not serviced and had no erf numbers or street names.
The case continues today.
By Roland Routh