PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1 The 1° PLAINTIFF is the GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA duly constituted as such in terms of the Namibian Constitution (herein represented by the Minister of Land Reform), with his address of service care of the Government Attorney,2™ Floor, Sanlam Centre, Independence Avenue, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia. 2 The 2" PLAINTIFF is the MAHARERO TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY duly established as such in terms of section 2 (1) of the Traditional Authority Act (Act No 25 of 2005), with its address of service care of the Government Attorney, 2nd Floor, Sanlam Centre, Independence Avenue, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia 3 The 1** DEFENDANT is BENESTUS KAMUNGUMA, an adult male person currently residing at Erindirozondjou village, Otjinene, Republic of Namibia 4 The 2™ DEFENDANT is the INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NAMIBIAN POLICE FORCE cited herein as the Head of the Force and appointed as such in terms of section 3(1) of the Police Act (Act No. 19 of 1990) with his address of service care of the Government Attorney, 2 Floor, Sanlam Centre, Independence Avenue, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia. 5 The 3 DEFENDANT is the CHAIRPERSON OF OMAHEKE LAND BOARD duly elected as such in terms of section 4(6) of the Communal Land Reform Act (ActNo. 5 of 2002), with his address of service care of the Government Attorney, 2° Floor, Sanlam Centre, Independence Avenue, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia 6 The 1* plaintiff is the owner of a portion of communal land, held in trust by the 2 plaintiff for the benefit of the traditional community, residing at an area known as Erindirozondjou, in Otjinene, Republic of Namibia 7 During July 2011 the 1* defendant unlawfully occupied and fenced off a portion of land that was used as grazing land by the entire community of Erindirozondjou village, Otjinene, 8 On the 5" of November 2011 a complaint was brought against the 1° defendant by the community of Erindirozondjou to the 2" plaintiff. The 2" plaintiff convened a hearing and found that the 1* defendant's occupation and fencing of the said communal land was unlawful and that the 1* defendant should stop forthwith with the occupation and fencing. The summarized minutes of the hearing are attached hereto marked as Annexure “A’ 9 An appeal was noted by 1* defendant against 2 plaintiff's ruling to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal upheld the 2" plaintiff's decision. A copy of the said letter is attached hereto marked as Annexure “B”. 10 There is currently no lease agreement that exist between the plaintiffs and the 1° defendant authorizing his continued occupation and fencing of the said land as such his occupation remains unlawful11 On the 30" of August 2016 plaintiffs legal representative gave written notice to the 1° defendant to vacate the said land. The written notice is attached hereto marked as Annexure “C”. 12 13 Despite demand 1% defendant has failed and/or refused to vacate the said land. In the premises 1st defendant is in unlawful occupation of the said land and Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain an eviction order against 1% defendant. WHEREFORE the plaintiffs prays for an order in the following terms: 1. An order evicting 1* defendant and all those who claim occupation through 1°* defendant from the commonage in Erindirozondjou village; 2. An order that 1% defendant remove his property/infrastructure from the land he unlawfully occupied in Erindirozondjou village within 60 days after judgment is granted; 3. An order authorizing the Deputy Sheriff for the district of Gobabis to remove 1* defendant in the event that 1° defendant fails to voluntarily vacate the commonage in Erindirozondjou within 60 days after judgment is granted. 4. An order authorizing the Namibian Police to assist the Deputy Sheriff in removing the 1% defendants property /infrastructure from the commonage in Erindirozondjou village if 1 defendant fails to voluntarily remove it himself within 60 days after judgment is granted5. An order that 1% defendant pays the cost of removing his property by the Deputy Sheriff should Defendant fail to remove same voluntarily within 60 days after judgment is granted 6. No order as to cost in the suit; 7. Further and/or alternative relief. DATED AT WINDHOEK ON THIS 11" DAY OF JANUARY 2017 DAY J S| GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY Legal Practitioner for Plaintiffs Per: N Kandovazu 2" Floor Sanlam Centre Indpendence Avenue Windhoek, Namibiaf frcem A Summarized Minutes of the hearing conducted by the Maharero Traditional Authority about the illegal occupation and fencing by Mr, Uatombonge Kamunguma at Erindirozondjou-village. Otjinene-Constituency of Omaheke Region on 5 November 2011. ‘The hearing was convened to hear the complain by the residents of Erinditozondjou about the illegal occupation and fencing of communal land by Mr. Uatombonga Kamunguma, The meeting started with the query whether Mr. Kamunguaftthave moved his cattle from the grazing area he has occupied and fenced off illegally as per agreement he has reached with the Maharero Traditional Authority. The reply by Mr. Kamunguma ‘was that he have not yet removed his livestock from the site. The reason he failed to meet the demand was that he have consulted another traditional authority Kamunguma said the agreement he reached with the Maharero Traditional Authority was not reached freely but he alleges that he was forced into it. Mr. Kamunguma failed to claborate on what the advice he got from the other traditional authority he consulted. Mr Kamunguma was told he fact that he failed to appear at the first hearing shows his total dlsrespect to the Maharero Traditional Authority. Secondly, he failed to remove his livestock from the grazing area he illegally occupied and fenced off. The meeting was informed that the residents of Erindirozondjou that they have serious reservations about the occupation and fencing of the common grazing area by Mr. Kamunguma without the consent his fellow villagers. Kamunguma informed the meeting that he did not consult anyone when he decided to relocate to the area he now occupies and that he did not get the consent from his fellow villagers. He said his problem was the fact that he homestead was stirrounded by land which is fenced off by those who came to live there before him, He complained that the fence of Mr. Noag Ngairorue have negatively affected the grazing of his livestock He was informed that the Mr. Ngairorue’s fence was reported by the residents of Ombujanjama and the matter was resolved amicably between both parties with the intervention of the Maharero Traditional Authority. Furthermore the meeting was informed that one other person was granted permission to reside 2 km from Erindirozondjou. WAHARERO ROVAL HOUSE] ‘TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY 05 DEC 2011 P.O. Box 45, Otfnene HEAD OFFICE Tel (062) $6765Mr. Kamunguma protested that he is not the only culprit of fencing off communal land illegally and that he is being unfairly targeted. He further alleged that he is not ing considered as a full resident by his fellow villagers at Erindirozondjou. This was Genied by both Mr. Ngairorue and Mr. Tjito who stated that Mr. Kamunguma was a party ‘o the complain by the villagers of Ombujanjama against Mr. Ngairorue’s fence that why itwas assumed that he still relate to being a resident of Ombajanjama Kamunguma claimed that he is not guilty ofthe charge of illegal occupation and fencing of communal land and that his action stems from his desire to farm properly just like any one else. He informed the hearing that the fenced land is about 2 Km in size. The residents of Erindirozondjou made it clear that Mr. Kamunguma’s fence have a severe negative impact on the grazing capacity of livestock for the whole village and that he have fenced-in a waterhole that serves livestock during the rainy season twas pointed out that Kamunguma is not the only one who does not owned livestock fence but that there are other people who are in a similar scenario. Kamunguma further alleged that his fence was cut and that such action constitutes a violation of his rights and that he is not being treated fairly ee bearing concluded that Mr. Kamunguma did not consult his fellow villagers prior to his action of occupying and fencing the common grazing area illegally. Mr. Kamunguma Was instructed to vacate the land that he has illegally occupied fenced off and to return to his homestead and to initiate consultation with his fellow villagers if he intends to relocate his homestead. On the charge of illegal fencing of communal land Mr-Kamunguma was strictly tld to remove his fence within a period of seven (7) days hence it contravene the laws that regulates fencing of communal land. Failure to remove the fence will leave the Maharero Traditional Authority with no option but to institute legal action against him 05 DEC 2011 P.O, Box 45, Ofjinene HEAD OFFICE, % HARERO ROYAL HOU NRADIMONAL AUTHOR 1 {ons e785 |REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA MINISTRY OF LANDS AND RESETTLEMENT Office of the Minister Tet (26 61) 296 S000 Robert Mugabe Avenue No, $$ Pax: (164 61) 228 240/296 5118 Prive Bag 15343, Enquirtes: Ms. M. Kasita/G. Sesuni WINDHOEK Tel: 296512025 The Secretary Maharero Royal House P.O. Box 45 Otjinene 29 August 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE MAHARERO T.A//U.B. KAMUNGUMA. With reference to the above subject matter, the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement would Tike to communicate to your office the decision that was taken by the Appeal [ibunal, which was appointed in terms of section 39 (6) and regulation 25 of the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 to hear the appeal of Mr. Kamunguma against the decision of the Maharero Traditional Authority, ihe Minisiry would like to inform you that after thorough consideration of the case, the Appeal ‘Tribunal resolved that: 4a. ‘The decision of the Maharero ‘Traditi val Authority be upheld; b. The appellant be sllowed 10 apply for lund right in accordance with the Procedures set out under Section 22 of the Communal Land Reform Act 2002 (No. 5 of 2002), © The Maharero Traditional Authority should look into such application in terms of Section 22(4) of the Communal Land Reform Act 2002 (No. § ‘of 2002). d. Mr, Kamunguma has the right in terms of the CLRA, 2002 to file @ complaint with the Makaero TA or Omaheke Communal Land Board regarding the fences erected by other villagers, It is trusted that the Maharero Traditional Authority will abide by the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and note that this decision was made in terms of Section 396), regulation 25 of the said Act and it is thus conclusive binding on both parties Allow me (o renew the assurance of my highest cansideration ‘Yours sincerely, oor All ofcial correspondence must be adresse tothe Pervaent Serretary Td @b:sr erez “190 £8 AEArSE 19 pSeHi “ON KUL SONWT 40 AMISININ? HOwREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY Tel: 4266.61 261 2451 Private Bag 13189 Fax: +26461 222.428 WINDHOEK Fax: +264 61 229 788 NAMIBIA Enquiries: Mr. N Kandovazu Our Ref: 629/16/A24/K Tel: +264 61 2812451 Your Ref: Unknown 30 August 2016 Mr. Uatombonge B. Kamunguma Po Box 10 Ofjinene, Namibia RE: LETTTER OF DEMAND MAHARERO TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY // UATOMBONGE BENESTUS KAMUNGUMA The above matter bears reference. We act on behalf of the Maharero Traditional Authority at whose instance we write this letter. We hold instructions that you have unlawiully occupied and fenced off communal grazing land in the village of Erindirozondjou, Otjinene Constituency in the Omaheke Region. Your occupation of the said land is unlawful and in violation of the Communal Land Reform Act. Act No 5 of 2002 Section 43(1) of Act No. 5 of 2002 provides that “No person may occupy or use for any purpose any communal land other than under a right acquired in accordance with the provisions of this Act’. All official correspondence must be addressed to the Government Attorney.—It_is_our_instructions that. You have-not-acquired-any-right-in terms of the — aforesaid Act to occupy the communal grazing land. 8 We deem your conduct to be a flagrant disregard for the laws of the Republic of Namibia and a grave violation of our client's rights as encapsulated under Act No 5 of 2002. 8 Failure to heed to this demand will compel us to take legal action against you without any further Notice. hfully, Mr.N Kandovazu For the: GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYDeputy Sheriff Return — Gobabis District Notice in terms of RULE 8 ACT 32/44 (MAGISTRATE’s COURTS) ORIGINAL, Our Ref. NONE Case No: NONE, URN No: N/A ‘TO: The Clerk of the Court WINDHOEK (if applicable) and Messers ‘GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY PRIVATE BAG 13189 WINDHOEK Your VAT No: Your Ref: 629/16/A2A/K In the MAGISTRATES COURT for the district of WINDHOEK held at WINDHOEK In the case between: MAHARERO TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY PLAINTIF And UATOMBONGE BENESTUS KAMUNGUMA DEFENDANT Address ERINDIROZONDIOU VILLAGE OTJINENE, - i LETTER OF DEMAND ‘On 10-SEP-3076 at 15:54 this process was dealt with as follows by A NGOIMUE: ANOTHER PERSON ‘A copy of the LETTER OF DEMAND was served in terms of rule 8 (2) (b) to MR. PUTUAOTA a person apparently over the age of 16 (sixteen) years old at the defendant’s given address Where applicable, the nature and exigency of the process has been explained to the person concerned. 278km WS TS DESCRIPTION OF FEES ‘Registration $3.75, o Rew $15.00 ‘ noe Service Fee $46.00 2 Traveling fee $2 780.00 GOBABIS. 900, Account ingo for bank depositstransfers: STANDARD BANK (GOBABIS) ‘Name: CORNELIUS KAUAMI No: 241233046 Email: NeNVT ‘Tel: 062 ~ $62337 Recents eee My VAT No: NA-NVT Issued on 12-SEP-2016, __TOTAL OWING 5284475