Mix problems still in the mix after court ruling

SECRETARY to Cabinet Frans Kapofi has lost a High Court bid to have squatters living on his property pay rent due to him.

Judge Gerhard Maritz ruled on Wednesday that an agent, Monica Pascheka, collecting money for the 1 400 residents, could not be held liable for the non-payment of the rent. Maritz said action would have to be taken against the residents themselves, and not against Pascheka.The close corporation Eluwa Lya Tenda, of which Kapofi is the sole member, took Pascheka to court for having reneged on a promise to hand over the money.She argued that it was against the will of the people she served.Chris Brandt Attorneys, who represented Pascheka, was also sued – for administering the trust into which the money is paid.Brandt argued that Pascheka was not in a position to pay over the money because, as an agent, she was acting on instructions from the residents.He said the residents were demanding an assurance from Kapofi that their future at the plot was secure before agreeing to pay over the money.He further indicated that the residents wanted to buy a portion of the plot on which they lived.For these reasons, Brandt said, Eluwa Lya Tenda should instead take issue with the residents directly, or at least the chairperson of the Mix Camp committee, and not Pascheka.The Mix Camp was established on Portion 8 of Farm Emmarentia – a 50 hectare plot acquired by Kapofi in July 2003.When he bought the property, Kapofi gave the squatters notice that they were expected to pay for living there and informed them that they should start finding alternative accommodation.Kapofi has said that in the long run the squatters would be forced to leave his property.Dave Smuts, acting for Eluwa Lya Tenda on the instruction of Peter Koep, maintained that Pascheka was liable for the non-compliance because she had undertaken to pay over the money when Koep contacted her about the issue in March.Smuts further contended that the relationship between Pascheka and the residents was a peculiar one, because there was no formal contract between the parties.He said Pascheka had collected the money on behalf of the owner and that it rightfully belonged to his client.The court found that Pascheka’s relationship with the residents had begun long before the current dispute, as she had been settling their water bills with the money she collected from them, and that it could not be assumed that she was collecting the money on behalf of the property owner.According to the judgement, Pascheka was only accountable to the residents, and not the property owner, despite the undertaking she gave him that she would pay over the money she collected.Some residents of the Mix Camp have lived on the property for as long as 20 years.Most of them are employees of businesses and farms in the Brakwater area.The informal settlement started in the 1980s when the former plot owner, Heiner Mix, allowed some workers to settle on his property.After his death in 1999, the settlement mushroomed to more than 300 shacks in the absence of a landlord.Maritz warned the parties that they would have to carefully consider relodging an application on the matter against the residents.He said that many of the people involved were unlikely to be able to afford the huge costs involved in a legal suit of this nature.Maritz said action would have to be taken against the residents themselves, and not against Pascheka.The close corporation Eluwa Lya Tenda, of which Kapofi is the sole member, took Pascheka to court for having reneged on a promise to hand over the money.She argued that it was against the will of the people she served.Chris Brandt Attorneys, who represented Pascheka, was also sued – for administering the trust into which the money is paid.Brandt argued that Pascheka was not in a position to pay over the money because, as an agent, she was acting on instructions from the residents.He said the residents were demanding an assurance from Kapofi that their future at the plot was secure before agreeing to pay over the money.He further indicated that the residents wanted to buy a portion of the plot on which they lived.For these reasons, Brandt said, Eluwa Lya Tenda should instead take issue with the residents directly, or at least the chairperson of the Mix Camp committee, and not Pascheka.The Mix Camp was established on Portion 8 of Farm Emmarentia – a 50 hectare plot acquired by Kapofi in July 2003.When he bought the property, Kapofi gave the squatters notice that they were expected to pay for living there and informed them that they should start finding alternative accommodation.Kapofi has said that in the long run the squatters would be forced to leave his property.Dave Smuts, acting for Eluwa Lya Tenda on the instruction of Peter Koep, maintained that Pascheka was liable for the non-compliance because she had undertaken to pay over the money when Koep contacted her about the issue in March.Smuts further contended that the relationship between Pascheka and the residents was a peculiar one, because there was no formal contract between the parties.He said Pascheka had collected the money on behalf of the owner and that it rightfully belonged to his client.The court found that Pascheka’s relationship with the residents had begun long before the current dispute, as she had been settling their water bills with the money she collected from them, and that it could not be assumed that she was collecting the money on behalf of the property owner.According to the judgement, Pascheka was only accountable to the residents, and not the property owner, despite the undertaking she gave him that she would pay over the money she collected.Some residents of the Mix Camp have lived on the property for as long as 20 years.Most of them are employees of businesses and farms in the Brakwater area.The informal settlement started in the 1980s when the former plot owner, Heiner Mix, allowed some workers to settle on his property.After his death in 1999, the settlement mushroomed to more than 300 shacks in the absence of a landlord.Maritz warned the parties that they would have to carefully consider relodging an application on the matter against the residents.He said that many of the people involved were unlikely to be able to afford the huge costs involved in a legal suit of this nature.