It’s wait-and-see in Josea liquidation bid

AN attempt to target the assets of asset management company Namangol Investments and its owner, Nico Josea, in a bid to recover part of the Social Security Commission’s lost investment of N$30 million, suffered a setback in the High Court in Windhoek yesterday.

It came in the form of a postponement in the hearing of applications in which the court is being asked to confirm provisional orders given for Namangol Investments to be liquidated and Josea’s personal estate to be sequestrated. The applications were set to be argued by lawyers Andrew Corbett, representing Eric Knouwds, the provisional liquidator who has been put in charge of Namangol’s affairs and who has likewise been put in control of Josea’s personal finances as provisional trustee of his estate, and Josea’s legal counsel, Jaco van Rooyen, before Judge President Petrus Damaseb on Monday and yesterday.However, the hearing, which soon became entangled in arguments over preliminary legal points, ended up being postponed to January 19 and 20.On those dates, two initial preliminary points are set to be argued.If the applications proceed after that, the main issues in the cases will be argued on March 2, 3 and 6, it was agreed.The first preliminary point raised by Van Rooyen was whether the first court documents notifying Josea of the legal actions instituted against him and his company had been properly served on him.If the court finds he was not properly notified, it could spell the end of the liquidation and sequestration applications.A second preliminary issue centres on evidence that is before the court in affidavit form.Corbett objected on Monday that a second affidavit from Josea was not properly before the court as long as the court had not been specifically asked to allow Josea to submit it.Normally a respondent has a right to file one answering affidavit, whereafter the applicant – Knouwds, in these applications – can file a second, replying affidavit.A second affidavit in which Josea responded to claims that Knouwds made in his replying affidavit has also been filed, prompting Corbett’s objection on Monday.Van Rooyen responded to the objection by filing yet another application with the court, in which he will ask that new evidence placed before the court through Knouwds’s replying affidavit and allegedly “scandalous”, “vexatious” and irrelevant statements in the affidavit should be scrapped from the record of evidence before the Judge.That new application is also set to be argued on January 19 and 20.The postponement of the hearing on the main issues – whether a final order should be given to place Namangol in liquidation and for Josea’s estate to be sequestrated – will at least bring the cases right up to a key date in Josea’s defence against the attempts to wrest control of his and his company’s finances.Josea claims that Knouwds – as liquidator of asset management company Avid Investment Corporation – is not entitled to claim that he and Namangol Investments are unable to pay debts they owe to Avid.Those debts will only become payable by the first week of March, when an investment for the SSC that Namangol facilitated for Avid, which had initially received N$30 million from the SSC to be invested for a four-month period, is supposed to mature, according to Josea.Whereas the SSC has claimed that its agreement with Avid was that it would invest N$30 million through the company for four months ending in late May, Josea has claimed that his agreement with Avid’s then Chief Executive Officer, the late Lazarus Kandara, was that Namangol would facilitate the further investment of N$20 million of this money for a year.That period ends in the first week of March, and Namangol Investments has been assured by a South African-based purported financial markets trader, Alan Rosenberg, who was given the N$20 million to invest, that Namangol stands to be paid some US$17,9 million (about N$117 million) when that investment matures, Josea claims.The problem for Josea’s case is that Knouwds has since claimed that Rosenberg has confirmed that this supposed investment was a bogus deal.By March, the court might get an indication of which of the two sides’ claims on this score have been borne out by events.The applications were set to be argued by lawyers Andrew Corbett, representing Eric Knouwds, the provisional liquidator who has been put in charge of Namangol’s affairs and who has likewise been put in control of Josea’s personal finances as provisional trustee of his estate, and Josea’s legal counsel, Jaco van Rooyen, before Judge President Petrus Damaseb on Monday and yesterday.However, the hearing, which soon became entangled in arguments over preliminary legal points, ended up being postponed to January 19 and 20.On those dates, two initial preliminary points are set to be argued.If the applications proceed after that, the main issues in the cases will be argued on March 2, 3 and 6, it was agreed.The first preliminary point raised by Van Rooyen was whether the first court documents notifying Josea of the legal actions instituted against him and his company had been properly served on him.If the court finds he was not properly notified, it could spell the end of the liquidation and sequestration applications.A second preliminary issue centres on evidence that is before the court in affidavit form.Corbett objected on Monday that a second affidavit from Josea was not properly before the court as long as the court had not been specifically asked to allow Josea to submit it.Normally a respondent has a right to file one answering affidavit, whereafter the applicant – Knouwds, in these applications – can file a second, replying affidavit.A second affidavit in which Josea responded to claims that Knouwds made in his replying affidavit has also been filed, prompting Corbett’s objection on Monday.Van Rooyen responded to the objection by filing yet another application with the court, in which he will ask that new evidence placed before the court through Knouwds’s replying affidavit and allegedly “scandalous”, “vexatious” and irrelevant statements in the affidavit should be scrapped from the record of evidence before the Judge.That new application is also set to be argued on January 19 and 20.The postponement of the hearing on the main issues – whether a final order should be given to place Namangol in liquidation and for Josea’s estate to be sequestrated – will at least bring the cases right up to a key date in Josea’s defence against the attempts to wrest control of his and his company’s finances.Josea claims that Knouwds – as liquidator of asset management company Avid Investment Corporation – is not entitled to claim that he and Namangol Investments are unable to pay debts they owe to Avid.Those debts will only become payable by the first week of March, when an investment for the SSC that Namangol facilitated for Avid, which had initially received N$30 million from the SSC to be invested for a four-month period, is supposed to mature, according to Josea.Whereas the SSC has claimed that its agreement with Avid was that it would invest N$30 million through the company for four months ending in late May, Josea has claimed that his agreement with Avid’s then Chief Executive Officer, the late Lazarus Kandara, was that Namangol would facilitate the further investment of N$20 million of this money for a year.That period ends in the first week of March, and Namangol Investments has been assured by a South African-based purported financial markets trader, Alan Rosenberg, who was given the N$20 million to invest, that Namangol stands to be paid some US$17,9 million (about N$117 million) when that investment matures, Josea claims.The problem for Josea’s case is that Knouwds has since claimed that Rosenberg has confirmed that this supposed investment was a bogus deal.By March, the court might get an indication of which of the two sides’ claims on this score have been borne out by events.