Zorena Jantze
ESJA Investments, a subsidiary firm of the Samherji group of corporations, a world group engaged in fishing worldwide, is searching for a courtroom order to launch funds of as much as N$ 162.6 million (USD 8,804,431.67) to be launched by the Namibian authorities and its sister firm, Heinaste Investments Pty Ltd.
Esja Investments (the plaintiff) claims that the excellent stability of its mortgage declare towards Heinaste Namibia involves USD 8.8 million plus curiosity after it helped Heinaste Namibia buy the MFV Heinaste fishing vessel, which is reported to have been used within the Fishrot scandal.
Esja Investments stated that it superior a complete of USD 7.2 million to Heinaste Namibia to assist fund the acquisition worth of the state-of-the-art fishing vessel, which price USD 23.3 million, and states that this mortgage quantity is because of it because it was not settled.
The second to the fourth defendants within the matter, that are the Government of Namibia, the Attorney General, the Prosecutor General, and the Bank of Namibia, have, nevertheless, opposed the discharge of those funds stated that they’re seized by the Namibian authorities as they’re alleged to have been proceeds of crime.
“The plaintiff and Heinaste Namibia are subsidiaries in the same group of companies. They and other companies and people in the same group stand accused of large-scale fraud and corruption. The Prosecutor General has instituted criminal proceedings against a large number of companies and people, including the plaintiffs and the first defendant. She has also launched an application for the restraint of their assets in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 29 of 2004 (POCA). Heinaste Namibia was the owner of the MFV Heinaste. The Namibian police seized it in terms of section 28 of POCA,” Government Attorney Jabulani Ncube stated.
He added that the Government and Heinaste Namibia agreed to promote the MFV Heinaste and maintain its proceeds in a joint account, in lieu of the MFV Heinaste itself, as property seized when it comes to part 28 of POCA.
“Heinaste Namibia and the other participants in the scheme indeed used the MFV Heinaste to implement the scheme. In the premises, the Government denies that the sale and loan agreements were lawful and binding because they were concluded for an unlawful purpose and contrary to public policy,” Ncube stated.
He additional stated that the Government has locus standi (authorized standing to oppose the matter in courtroom).
“The question is merely whether the Government has standing to oppose the plaintiff’s claims against Heinaste Namibia. It clearly does. The plaintiff is accordingly not entitled to default judgment because its prayers 1 and 2 are opposed by the Government,” Ncube stated.
Senior Counsel, Advocate Raymond Heathcote, representing Esja Investments, the plaintiff within the matter, nevertheless, stated that the First Defendant (Heinaste Namibia) didn’t defend the motion, and the plaintiff is, as a matter of regulation and process, entitled to acquire default judgment towards it.
“We digress to remind the court that it is common practice in these courts for default judgment to be granted against one defendant, say a principal debtor, who has not defended an action, whilst a judgment creditor’s claim against the remaining defendants… proceeds in the ordinary course until trial stage. Both the law and the rules of court allow for this,” Heathcote stated.
He additional denied averments made that the PG instituted prison proceedings towards the plaintiff on this motion.
Advocate Heathcote stated that the PG had already explicitly excluded that portion of the fund held when it comes to the joint settlement when she pertinently excluded the bonds over the MFV Heinaste within the reduction sought.
“She did not only pertinently exclude that portion of the funds now under consideration. Actually, she asked for a positive order that if a restraint order is granted, the first defendant must pay that portion of the fund (which constitutes the bond) to the plaintiff,” Heathcote argued.
High Court Judge, Hannelie Prinsloo postponed the matter to six March 2025 for supply of judgement.