Walvis Bay largesse to ex-CEO Katiti heads for High Court

A DECISION of the Walvis Bay Town Council to award a close to N$2,8 million golden handshake to its former Chief Executive Officer, Augustinus Katiti, when he resigned from his post is set to be challenged in the High Court.

Documents setting in motion a case in which the High Court will be asked to set aside the decision to pay almost N$2,8 million to Katiti after he resigned a year into a five-year contract as CEO of the harbour town, were served on the Walvis Bay Town Council, the Minister of Regional and Local Government and Housing, the Erongo Regional Council, and Katiti on Wednesday. The case against the town council, Katiti and the other parties is being brought by the Walvis Bay Ratepayers’ Association (WBRA) and a Walvis Bay businessman and property owner, Gerhard Friedrich Roessler, who is also a member of the WBRA.The town council, Katiti and the other respondents now have 15 working days from the serving of the documents on them to indicate what their response to the case would be.The Ratepayers’ Association and Roessler are claiming that there were irregularities surrounding the payout made to Katiti upon his resignation on short notice.Katiti officially handed in his resignation on March 27 2007.He gave notice that his last working day would be April 2.The Council Management Committee, on the day Katiti officially resigned, recommended that the town council should condone the short notice of resignation and accept as “a legally binding agreement between the parties, a full and final lump sum amount of N$2 781 329,90, gross, be paid to the CEO on 30 March 2007”, according to a council document.As soon as the news came to light, the WBRA instructed its lawyers, Kinghorn Associates, to obtain access to all documents from the Walvis Bay Town Council relating to amounts paid to Katiti and any negotiations relating to the resignation of the former CEO.In response, the town council’s legal representatives, Metcalfe Legal Practitioners, indicated that it was their opinion that the particulars of Katiti’s resignation package forms part of his basic conditions of employment, as prescribed under a section of the Local Authorities Act.The council’s lawyers also claimed that the WBRA was not entitled to any access to the information the organisation requested.It was further stated that allegations that the amount paid to Katiti did not comply with legislation, was “uncalled for and holds no ground whatsoever”.The WBRA is however not of the view that the resignation package formed part of his conditions of employment.It also felt that the secrecy surrounding the payout left the ratepayers, who are entitled to know how the public funds of the Walvis Bay Town Council are spent, with a clear impression that Council acted beyond its powers, it is claimed in the case now filed with the High Court.In an affidavit filed with the court, WBRA chairperson Marius de Villiers notes that Katiti, at the time of his resignation, had served as CEO for a period of approximately one year since his previous five-year contract was renewed for a further five years during 2006.The WBRA says that Katiti’s premature resignation on three days’ notice amounted to a breach of contract for which he “appears to have been generously compensated rather than to be held liable for such breach” by Council.The WBRA also understood that, “normally, when a person resigns, he is at best entitled only to the payment of outstanding leave (subject to the provisions applicable in respect of the maximum amount of leave days that can be accumulated), his salary as at the date of resignation and such pension benefits to which such an employee may be entitled to as at the date of his resignation,” De Villiers states.”In these circumstances it is not understood why it was necessary to ‘negotiate’ a ‘termination package’ at all.Council’s Human Resource department could deal with the matter in the same manner as in the case of resignation of any other employee,” the WBRA argues.The WBRA is charging that the payment to Katiti “was irregular and contrary to the prescribed procedures” – both internal and those contained in the Act.”The WBRA and its members and other ratepayers and residents placed their trust in the Walvis Bay Town Council not to spend money in unauthorised and unlawful manner.Council can only exercise such powers as are granted to it in terms of the Act.In the circumstances the WBRA must conclude that first respondent acted ultra vires,” De Villiers states on behalf of the WBRA.Because of the legal route the matter has taken, the Walvis Bay Town Council still does not wish to comment, according to its Public Relations Manager, Kevin Adams.The case against the town council, Katiti and the other parties is being brought by the Walvis Bay Ratepayers’ Association (WBRA) and a Walvis Bay businessman and property owner, Gerhard Friedrich Roessler, who is also a member of the WBRA.The town council, Katiti and the other respondents now have 15 working days from the serving of the documents on them to indicate what their response to the case would be.The Ratepayers’ Association and Roessler are claiming that there were irregularities surrounding the payout made to Katiti upon his resignation on short notice.Katiti officially handed in his resignation on March 27 2007.He gave notice that his last working day would be April 2.The Council Management Committee, on the day Katiti officially resigned, recommended that the town council should condone the short notice of resignation and accept as “a legally binding agreement between the parties, a full and final lump sum amount of N$2 781 329,90, gross, be paid to the CEO on 30 March 2007”, according to a council document.As soon as the news came to light, the WBRA instructed its lawyers, Kinghorn Associates, to obtain access to all documents from the Walvis Bay Town Council relating to amounts paid to Katiti and any negotiations relating to the resignation of the former CEO.In response, the town council’s legal representatives, Metcalfe Legal Practitioners, indicated that it was their opinion that the particulars of Katiti’s resignation package forms part of his basic conditions of employment, as prescribed under a section of the Local Authorities Act.The council’s lawyers also claimed that the WBRA was not entitled to any access to the information the organisation requested.It was further stated that allegations that the amount paid to Katiti did not comply with legislation, was “uncalled for and holds no ground whatsoever”.The WBRA is however not of the view that the resignation package formed part of his conditions of employment.It also felt that the secrecy surrounding the payout left the ratepayers, who are entitled to know how the public funds of the Walvis Bay Town Council are spent, with a clear impression that Council acted beyond its powers, it is claimed in the case now filed with the High Court.In an affidavit filed with the court, WBRA chairperson Marius de Villiers notes that Katiti, at the time of his resignation, had served as CEO for a period of approximately one year since his previous five-year contract was renewed for a further five years during 2006.The WBRA says that Katiti’s premature resignation on three days’ notice amounted to a breach of contract for which he “appears to have been generously compensated rather than to be held liable for such breach” by Council.The WBRA also understood that, “normally, when a person resigns, he is at best entitled only to the payment of outstanding leave (subject to the provisions applicable in respect of the maximum amount of leave days that can be accumulated), his salary as at the date of resignation and such pension benefits to which such an employee may be entitled to as at the date of his resignation,” De Villiers states.”In these circumstances it is not understood why it was necessary to ‘negotiate’ a ‘termination package’ at all.Council’s Human Resource department could deal with the matter in the same manner as in the case of resignation of any other employee,” the WBRA argues.The WBRA is charging that the payment to Katiti “was irregular and contrary to the prescribed procedures” – both internal and those contained in the Act.”The WBRA and its members and other ratepayers and residents placed their trust in the Walvis Bay Town Council not to spend money in unauthorised and unlawful manner.Council can only exercise such powers as are granted to it in terms of the Act.In the circumstances the WBRA must conclude that first respondent acted ultra vires,” De Villiers states on behalf of the WBRA.Because of the legal route the matter has taken, the Walvis Bay Town Council still does not wish to comment, according to its Public Relations Manager, Kevin Adams.