Nico Josea’s sequestration bogs down

A COURT hearing that could determine the financial future of one of the main figures in the Social Security Commission/Avid Investment Corporation saga promptly got stuck in lawyer’s arguments over preliminary legal points soon after its start in the High Court in Windhoek yesterday.

Judge President Petrus Damaseb is set to continue hearing applications for the sequestration of the personal estate of Nico Josea and the liquidation of Josea’s asset management company, Namangol Investments, today. Yesterday, a disagreement between the lawyers representing liquidator Eric Knouwds, who was put in charge of Avid when the company’s liquidation was ordered in July, and the lawyers appearing for Josea and Namangol Investments saw proceedings on the first day of the combined hearing of the cases involving Josea and Namangol Investments cut short and postponed to be continued today.The topic of the difference of opinion between Andrew Corbett, representing Knouwds, and Jaco van Rooyen, who is representing Josea and Namangol, was the sort of point which, while easily appearing to be technical and peripheral to an outside observer, could get lawyers involved in the case fired up into heated arguments.It boiled down to the question of which of the opposing parties before court would be allowed to have the last turn to place evidence before the court.At stake in the argument between Corbett and Van Rooyen is whether a second sworn statement from Josea was properly before the court.That statement had been filed with the court in reply to an affidavit by Knouwds that is also before the court.The statement from Knouwds had in turn been filed in reply to a first affidavit from Josea, which was initially filed in answer to a first affidavit in which Ian McLaren – then one of the three provisional liquidators, with Knouwds, in control of Namangol Investments’ affairs – had set out the case why the court was in the first place asked to order the provisional liquidation of the company and the provisional sequestration of Josea’s estate.The hearing yesterday stood down to this morning so that Van Rooyen and his instructing attorneys, Derick Greyling from Johannesburg and Windhoek lawyer, André Louw, could prepare a proper application in which the Judge President could be asked to allow them to have Josea’s second affidavit included in the evidence before the court.Only once that issue had been sorted out would Van Rooyen and Corbett proceed with arguments about whether the court should order that provisional orders for the liquidation of Namangol and for the provisional sequestration of Josea’s estate should be confirmed as final orders.Josea and Namangol Investments became involved in an investment of N$30 million by the SSC with Avid Investment Corporation in late January, when N$29,5 million of that money was transferred by Avid to a bank account of Namangol.According to Josea, he was asked to transfer N$20 million of that money to a purported financial markets trader in South Africa, Alan Rosenberg, for further investment, while he had to invest another N$6,3 million elsewhere and the remaining N$3,2 million was gradually paid back to Avid’s Chief Executive Officer, the late Lazarus Kandara.The SSC is claiming that its agreement with Avid was that the investment of the N$30 million would be for a four-month period.However, when the money had to be repaid by late May, Avid was unable to meet its end of the deal.This prompted the SSC in early July to get a High Court order for the provisional liquidation of Avid, because Avid was not able to repay its debt to the SSC.In a subsequent High Court inquiry into the investment, it emerged that the bulk of the SSC’s money had gone through Namangol Investments’ bank account before it was sent out of Namibia, with N$20 million that went to a South African bank account held by Rosenberg and N$6,3 million that was paid into another account in Cape Town.That last account has been frozen, with some N$7,5 million available in it, but none of the money that went to Rosenberg has been recovered so far – which is where Josea and Namangol enter the picture.It also emerged at the High Court inquiry that in mid-March Josea had received some N$15 million back from Rosenberg.The meaning to be attached to this payment is expected to be one of the main bones of contention in the liquidation and sequestration battle before Judge President Damaseb.Knouwds has argued in his affidavit that this N$15 million was part of the SSC’s money that was paid back to Josea, and that as a result was due to Avid and the SSC.Josea, however, claimed that this money resulted from an agreement in which he and Rosenberg settled a court case that he had lodged against Rosenberg, and that the N$15 million was damages payable to Namangol that Rosenberg had agreed to pay to him as part of the settlement.The crucial claim in the liquidation application against Namangol Investments and the sequestration application against Josea is that they are not able to repay the money that Knouwds claims they owe to Avid.But according to Josea, that money is still tied up in an investment that Rosenberg handled and is not yet due and payable.He is stating in his first answering affidavit before the court that the agreement between him and Rosenberg was that Rosenberg would invest the money from Avid for a year.Kandara also knew about the length of the investment, Josea is claiming.The upshot of this, according to Josea, is that the money would have to be repaid to Avid only by the first week of March, with the result that neither he nor Namangol Investments could be required at this stage already to repay the money.In a case marked by claims and counterclaims, Knouwds again had a response to this.The investment that according to Josea supposedly runs to early March never came off the ground, Rosenberg has admitted, and Josea knew well that the SSC’s investment with Avid was supposed to mature and would have had to be repaid by late May, Knouwds has claimed in an affidavit before the court.It is Josea’s reply to this affidavit that sparked yesterday’s first courtroom confrontation between Corbett and Van Rooyen – a face-off that is set to continue today.Yesterday, a disagreement between the lawyers representing liquidator Eric Knouwds, who was put in charge of Avid when the company’s liquidation was ordered in July, and the lawyers appearing for Josea and Namangol Investments saw proceedings on the first day of the combined hearing of the cases involving Josea and Namangol Investments cut short and postponed to be continued today.The topic of the difference of opinion between Andrew Corbett, representing Knouwds, and Jaco van Rooyen, who is representing Josea and Namangol, was the sort of point which, while easily appearing to be technical and peripheral to an outside observer, could get lawyers involved in the case fired up into heated arguments.It boiled down to the question of which of the opposing parties before court would be allowed to have the last turn to place evidence before the court.At stake in the argument between Corbett and Van Rooyen is whether a second sworn statement from Josea was properly before the court.That statement had been filed with the court in reply to an affidavit by Knouwds that is also before the court.The statement from Knouwds had in turn been filed in reply to a first affidavit from Josea, which was initially filed in answer to a first affidavit in which Ian McLaren – then one of the three provisional liquidators, with Knouwds, in control of Namangol Investments’ affairs – had set out the case why the court was in the first place asked to order the provisional liquidation of the company and the provisional sequestration of Josea’s estate.The hearing yesterday stood down to this morning so that Van Rooyen and his instructing attorneys, Derick Greyling from Johannesburg and Windhoek lawyer, André Louw, could prepare a proper application in which the Judge President could be asked to allow them to have Josea’s second affidavit included in the evidence before the court.Only once th
at issue had been sorted out would Van Rooyen and Corbett proceed with arguments about whether the court should order that provisional orders for the liquidation of Namangol and for the provisional sequestration of Josea’s estate should be confirmed as final orders.Josea and Namangol Investments became involved in an investment of N$30 million by the SSC with Avid Investment Corporation in late January, when N$29,5 million of that money was transferred by Avid to a bank account of Namangol.According to Josea, he was asked to transfer N$20 million of that money to a purported financial markets trader in South Africa, Alan Rosenberg, for further investment, while he had to invest another N$6,3 million elsewhere and the remaining N$3,2 million was gradually paid back to Avid’s Chief Executive Officer, the late Lazarus Kandara.The SSC is claiming that its agreement with Avid was that the investment of the N$30 million would be for a four-month period.However, when the money had to be repaid by late May, Avid was unable to meet its end of the deal.This prompted the SSC in early July to get a High Court order for the provisional liquidation of Avid, because Avid was not able to repay its debt to the SSC.In a subsequent High Court inquiry into the investment, it emerged that the bulk of the SSC’s money had gone through Namangol Investments’ bank account before it was sent out of Namibia, with N$20 million that went to a South African bank account held by Rosenberg and N$6,3 million that was paid into another account in Cape Town.That last account has been frozen, with some N$7,5 million available in it, but none of the money that went to Rosenberg has been recovered so far – which is where Josea and Namangol enter the picture.It also emerged at the High Court inquiry that in mid-March Josea had received some N$15 million back from Rosenberg.The meaning to be attached to this payment is expected to be one of the main bones of contention in the liquidation and sequestration battle before Judge President Damaseb.Knouwds has argued in his affidavit that this N$15 million was part of the SSC’s money that was paid back to Josea, and that as a result was due to Avid and the SSC.Josea, however, claimed that this money resulted from an agreement in which he and Rosenberg settled a court case that he had lodged against Rosenberg, and that the N$15 million was damages payable to Namangol that Rosenberg had agreed to pay to him as part of the settlement.The crucial claim in the liquidation application against Namangol Investments and the sequestration application against Josea is that they are not able to repay the money that Knouwds claims they owe to Avid.But according to Josea, that money is still tied up in an investment that Rosenberg handled and is not yet due and payable.He is stating in his first answering affidavit before the court that the agreement between him and Rosenberg was that Rosenberg would invest the money from Avid for a year.Kandara also knew about the length of the investment, Josea is claiming.The upshot of this, according to Josea, is that the money would have to be repaid to Avid only by the first week of March, with the result that neither he nor Namangol Investments could be required at this stage already to repay the money.In a case marked by claims and counterclaims, Knouwds again had a response to this.The investment that according to Josea supposedly runs to early March never came off the ground, Rosenberg has admitted, and Josea knew well that the SSC’s investment with Avid was supposed to mature and would have had to be repaid by late May, Knouwds has claimed in an affidavit before the court.It is Josea’s reply to this affidavit that sparked yesterday’s first courtroom confrontation between Corbett and Van Rooyen – a face-off that is set to continue today.