Upload
vancong
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEKJUDGMENT
CASE NO.: I 3124 /2012
In the matter between:
ISSASKAR KAUNE PLAINTIFF
and
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS AND 27 OTHERS DEFENDANTS
Neutral citation: Kaune v Registrar of Deeds (I3124-2012) [2016] NAHCMD 241 (22
August 2016)
Coram: UEITELE, J
Heard: 09, 10. 11, 12, 13 November 2015, 28 January 2016, 23 February 2016,
01, 02 & 23 March 2016.
Delivered: 22 August 2016
Flynote: Practice-Trial - Absolution from the instance at close of plaintiff's case-
farmer who progressed to become a commercial farmer, died without leaving a will. His
estate included, livestock, cash, immovable property and motor vehicles.
REPORT
Summary: On 30 June 1988 Mr. Phillipus Kaune, a communal farmer who
progressed to become a commercial farmer, died without leaving a will. His estate
included livestock, cash, immovable property and motor vehicles. The late Kaune was
survived by his widow, and twenty four children. One of his sons is the plaintiff in this
matter. The plaintiff instituted action in this court in which he sought: (a) an order
declaring that he (i.e. the plaintiff) is, in terms of the Otjiherero customary law,
alternatively Otjiherero custom the lawful heir to Farm Uithou (b), declaring that the
appointment of Petrus Van Straten, on 12 August 2010, as the executor in the Estate of
the late Kaune as invalid: (c) an order authorizing and directing the Registrar of Deeds
to, in accordance with the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, register Farm Uithou in the name
of the plaintiff; and (d) cost of the action.
Held that because the plaintiff relies on a statement or a wish allegedly expressed by
his late father that he is to inherit the Farm the onus is on the plaintiff to, at the trial,
prove that his late father made the statement or expressed the wish that he, the plaintiff
is to inherit the Farm if the father predeceases the plaintiff. The second fact which the
plaintiff must prove is that he did in accordance with Otjiherero Customarily law
alternatively Otjiherero custom and tradition inherit the Farm.
Held further that at the stage of an application for absolution, the plaintiff, as in the
present circumstances need not show that as a fact or that on the balance of
probabilities, the Court will find that his father, the late Kaune, made the statement or
expressed the wish that on his death the plaintiff must inherit the Farm. All the plaintiff
has to do is to show that there is sufficient admissible evidence which shows that a
reasonable Court might find that the late Kaune made the statement or expressed the
wish that if he, the late Kaune, predeceases the plaintiff the plaintiff must inherit the
Farm.
Held that there is no admissible evidence before court that the late Kaune made the
statement or expressed the wish that if he, the late Kaune, predeceases the plaintiff the
plaintiff must inherit the Farm and that plaintiff did not place a single piece of evidence
Page 2
before court as to what the practice in Otjiherero custom or what the Otjiherero
customary law in respect of inheritance or success is.
Held further that the plaintiff did not put any shred of evidence before court as to how, in
the Otjiherero custom and tradition, ownership in respect of the immovable property
passes from one person to another;
Held furthermore that the appointment of Mr van Straten is a valid administrative act
performed by the Master.
Held further that no reasonable court could or might give judgment in plaintiff’s favour
and the defendants are therefore absolved from the instance.
ORDER
1 The defendants are absolved from the instance.
2 The plaintiff must pay the costs incurred by the defendants, such cost to include
the costs:
(a) In respect of the 4th -19th, 21st -23rd and 26th defendants. The cost, of
one instructing and one instructed counsel.
(b) In respect of the 27th and 28th defendants the costs of one instructing and
two instructed counsels.
Page 3
JUDGMENT
UEITELE, J:
Introduction and background.
[1] This case, concerns the administration of a deceased estate. On 30 June 1988
Mr. Phillipus Kaune (I will in this judgment refer to him as the late Kaune) a communal
farmer who progressed to become a commercial farmer, died without leaving a will. His
estate included, livestock, cash, immovable property and motor vehicles. The late
Kaune was survived by his widow, and twenty four children. One of his sons is the
applicant in this matter.
[2] At the time of the death of the late Kaune two pieces of legislation governed
intestate succession in Namibia namely the Native Administration Proclamation, 19281
(I will, in this judgment refer to this piece of legislation as ‘the Proclamation’) and the
Intestate Succession Ordinance, 1946.2 (I will, in this judgment refer to this piece of
legislation as ‘the Intestate Succession Ordinance’).
[3] The significance of these two pieces of legislation lies in s18 of the Proclamation
and section 1 of the Intestate Succession Ordinance. In terms of s 18(2) of the
Proclamation the estate of a ‘native’ would be administered and distributed according to
native law and custom. That subsection reads as follows:
‘(2) All other property of whatsoever kind belonging to a Native shall be capable of
being devised by will. Any such property not so devised shall devolve and be
administered according to native law and custom.’
1 Proclamation No 15 of 1928.2 Ordinance No. 12 of 1946.
Page 4
[4] In terms section 1 of the Intestate Succession Ordinance, 1946 the surviving
spouse of a person (other than a black person or coloured or Rehoboth Baster) is the
sole intestate heir if no descendants, parents, brothers or sisters survive the deceased
spouse.3 If the spouses are married in community of property and the deceased spouse
is survived by descendants, the surviving spouse inherits a child’s share or an amount
which together with the surviving spouse’s share in the joint estate does not exceed
N$50 000.4 If the spouses are married out of community of property and the deceased
spouse is survived by descendants, the surviving spouse inherits a child’s share or an
amount not exceeding N$50 000.5 Irrespective of the marital property regime, if the
deceased spouse is not survived by any descendants but leaves parents, brothers or
sisters, the surviving spouse inherits a half share provided that the half share does not
exceed N$50 000.6
[5] In addition to determining who is eligible to inherit the property of a deceased
person the Intestate Succession Ordinance, provides that when a white person dies
without leaving a will the administration of his or her estate is supervised by the Master
of the High Court (I will, in this judgment, refer to her as the ‘Master’). The Proclamation
provides that when a black person dies intestate, the administration of his or her estate
is supervised by the magistrate of the district in which the deceased resided at the time
of his or her death.
[6] From the evidence that was placed before me it appears that in pursuance of the
Proclamation the Magistrate for the District of Gobabis, during December 1988,
appointed a certain Mr Alfred Tjaimba as executor of the Estate of the late Kaune.
During March 1989 the Magistrate for the District of Gobabis further appointed Erwin
Kaune as an Executor in the estate of the late Kaune. Between 1988 and 1991 the
movable assets of the late Kaune were distributed amongst his children and family
members. The immovable property which the late Kaune owned was a Farm known as
the Remaining Portion of the Farm Uithou No. 366 situated in the District of Gobabis, 3 Section 1(1)(d) of Ordinance 12 of 1946. 4 Section 1(1)(a) of Ordinance 12 of 1946. 5 Section 1(1)(b) of Ordinance 12 of 1946. 6 Section 1(1)(c) of Ordinance 12 of 1946.
Page 5
Omaheke Region (I will in this judgment refer to this property as ‘Farm’). This Farm is
still registered in the name of the late Kaune and is the subject matter of the dispute
between the children of the late Kaune.
[7] On 21 March 1990 Namibia became an independent sovereign State where the
Constitution became the Supreme law of the Country. The Constitution of Namibia
founded a democratic State, founded amongst other things on the rule of law and
guaranteed certain fundamental rights to all who live in Namibia. One of the
fundamental rights guaranteed is the equality of all persons before the law.
[8] In the matter of Berendt and Another v Stuurman and Others7 this court held that
sections 18(1), 18(2) and 18(9) of the Proclamation and the regulations made under s
18(9) were in conflict with the Constitution of Namibia and were accordingly set aside,
because they were discriminatory in operation. Following the setting aside of section 18
of the Proclamation, Parliament, during December 2005, enacted the Estates and
Succession Amendment Act, 2005.8 That Act, in s 3 (3), empowers the Master to, at the
request of any interested party, supervise the administration of the estate of a black
person who had died prior to December 2005.
[9] During the course of the year 2010 some of the children of the late Kaune
applied to the Master for her to appoint an executor in the estate of their late father. On
12 August 2010 the Master appointed the twenty seventh defendant, Mr. Alwyn Petrus
Van Straten, as the executor in the Estate of the late Kaune. Two years (that is during
October 2012) after Mr. Van Straten was appointed as executor in the Estate of the late
Kaune the plaintiff instituted this action in which he claims the following relief:
(a) An order declaring that he (i.e. the plaintiff) is, in terms of the Otjiherero
Customary law, alternatively Otjiherero custom, the lawful heir to the Farm.
(b) An order declaring the appointment of Mr. Alwyn Petrus Van Straten as the
executor in the Estate of the late Kaune as invalid.
7 2003 NR 81 (HC).8 Act No. 15 of 2005.
Page 6
(c) An order authorizing and directing the Registrar of Deeds to, in accordance with
the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, register the Farm in the name of the plaintiff.
(d) Cost of the action.
[10] After the parties exchanged pleadings the dispute proceeded to trial. I heard
evidence, on behalf of the plaintiff over seven days (that is from 09 November 2015 to
13 November 2015 and again from 01 to 02 March 2016). On 23 March 2016 the
plaintiff indicated that he was closing his case. When the plaintiff closed his case the
defendants moved an application for absolution from the instance. With the above
introduction and background, I will now proceed and briefly discuss the principles
applicable to applications for absolution from the instance and thereafter set out the
allegations made by the protagonist in their pleadings, and will thereafter briefly set out
the evidence led by the plaintiff. After I have briefly restated the evidence I will consider
whether or not the court may grant absolution at the close of the plaintiff's case.
The test for absolution at the close of plaintiff’s case.
[11] The counsels who appeared for the plaintiff and the defendants agreed as to the
test to be applied. The test on absolution is trite and was formulated in the now well-
known case of Claude Neon Lights (SA) Ltd v Daniel9 by Miller, A.J.A as follows:
'… when absolution from the instance is sought at the close of plaintiff's case, the test to
be applied is not whether the evidence led by the plaintiff establishes what would finally
be required to be established, but whether there is evidence upon which a Court,
applying its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should, nor ought to)
find for the plaintiff.’10
9 1976 (4) SA 403 (A) at 409G – H — D.10 The formulation of test in this fashion was approved by the Supreme Court in the matter of Stier
and Another v Henke 2012 (1) NR 370 (SC) at 373.
Page 7
[12] In the matter of Gordon Lloyd Page & Associates v Rivera and Another11 Harms
JA, after restating the formulation of the test, went on to explain, at 92H, that:
'This implies that a plaintiff has to make out a prima facie case — in the sense that there
is evidence relating to all the elements of the claim — to survive absolution because
without such evidence no court could find for the plaintiff (Marine & Trade Insurance Co
Ltd v Van der Schyff 1972 (1) SA 26 (A) at 37G – 38A.’
[13] In the matter of Aluminium City CC v Scandia Kitchens & Joinery (Pty) Ltd12
Silungwe AJ said:
‘It is often said that, in order to escape absolution from the instance, a plaintiff has to
make out a prima facie case in that it is on prima facie evidence - which is sometimes
reckoned as evidence requiring an answer (Alli v De Lira 1973 (4) SA 635 (T) at 638B -
F) - that a court could or might decide in favour of the plaintiff. However, the requisite
standard is less stringent than that of a prima facie case requiring an answer. Prima
facie evidence does not necessarily have to call for an answer, it is sufficient for such
evidence to at least have the potential for a finding in favour of the plaintiff.’
[14] The authors Schwikkard & Van der Merwe13 argue that “a prima facie case is
made out when there is evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably,
could or might find for the plaintiff.’ In order for a prima facie case to exist there must be
evidence in respect of each essential element of the claim on which a court would find
in favour of a party if it believed the evidence to be true…’ In the matter of Bidoli v
Ellistron Truck & Plant14, Levy AJ stated that ‘the phrase 'applying its mind reasonably'
requires the Court not to consider the evidence in vacuo but to consider the admissible
evidence in relation to the pleadings and in relation to the requirements of the law
applicable to the particular case. I will now proceed and consider the pleadings.
Pleadings
11 2001 (1) SA 88 (SCA).12 2007 (2) NR 494 (HC) at 496E.13 In their book: Principles of Evidence. 3rd ed at p 578.14 2002 NR 451 (HC) at 453.
Page 8
[15] In his amended particulars of claim the plaintiff amongst other things alleges that
on 10 April 1985 the late Phillippus Kaune summoned his children namely Willemina
Kaune, Jogbeth Kamuhanga Kaune, Godfriedine Kaune Kambatuku, Victor Kaune and
him to a place called Otjoruharui in the Aminius Constituency where he informed them
that he had decided that if he predeceased the plaintiff, the plaintiff would inherit the
Farm. He further pleaded that during July 1988 the executors (consisting of Erwin
Kaune, Alfred Tjaimba, Lazarus Handura, Sephania Gertzen and Marindi
Kaukumangera all of whom, except Marindi Kaukumangera, have passed on) of the
estate of the late Kaune were appointed under Otjiherero customary law.
[16] In the particulars of claim the plaintiff further alleges that towards the end of July
or at the beginning of August 1988 and at Otjoruharui in the Aminius Constituency, the
executors (whom I mentioned above in paragraph 15) of the late Kaune’s estate met
and distributed his estate to the heirs in terms of Otjiherero customary law and that as a
consequence of such distribution and in terms of the late Kaune’s expressed wish
communicated on 10 April 1985, the Farm was lawfully inherited by the plaintiff in terms
of Otjiherero Customary law, alternatively in terms of Otjiherero custom and tradition.
He further alleges that some of his siblings who are amongst the third to the twenty
fourth defendants are now disputing that he lawfully inherited the Farm.
[17] He further states, in his particulars of claim, that on 12 August 2010 the Master
appointed Mr. Van Straten (the twenty seventh defendant) as an executor of the Estate
of the late Kaune. He contends that at the time that the twenty seventh defendant was
appointed the estate of the late Kaune had already devolved to the lawful heirs and as
such there was no estate to be distributed. He thus contended that the appointment of
Van Straten as executor was of no force or effect.
[18] After requesting further particulars to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim and after
being provided with the further particulars the defendants pleaded to the plaintiff’s
particulars of claim. The essence of the defendants’ plea is that the defendants deny
that the plaintiff lawfully inherited the Farm. In amplification of the denial that the
Page 9
plaintiff inherited the Farm the defendants pleaded that no meeting as alleged by the
plaintiff was held on 10 April 1985, they pleaded that the meeting referred to in
paragraph 33 of the plaintiff’s particulars of claim was held on 10 April 1981 and that the
plaintiff was not present at that meeting. They furthermore pleaded that at the meeting
the late Kaune never stated that if he predeceased the plaintiff the plaintiff should inherit
the Farm. They pleaded that the plaintiff said that “The Farm is for all my children.”
[19] The defendants pleaded in the alternative that if this court were to find that a
meeting was held on 10 April 1985 and that the late Kaune made the statement as
alleged by plaintiff then and in such event the defendants plead that such statement
cannot in law constitute a valid testamentary bequest, more particularly in that:
(a) Customary law did not know and still does not know the concept of individual
ownership of immovable property as registered in the Deeds Office or otherwise,
and therefore the phrase “shall devolve and be administered according to native
law and custom”, contained in s 18(2) of the Native Administration Proclamation
No. 14 of 1928, does not find application to the immovable property registered in
the name of the late Kaune.
(b) In as much as the alleged statement purports to amount to a testamentary
disposition it does to comply with the provisions of section 2 of the Wills Act,
1953 (Act 7 of 1953) for a valid testamentary disposition and is invalid.
[20] The defendants, in their plea, admitted that in terms of section 18(2) of the
Proclamation as read with section 2 of the Estates and Succession Act, the estate of the
late Kaune was to devolve and be administered according to Otjiherero Customary law
and custom but deny that they elected or, alternatively accepted that such estate had to
devolve or devolved as alleged by the plaintiff. In amplification of the denial the
defendants pleaded that, the livestock and other personal belongings of the late Kaune
were distributed according to Otjiherero Customary law alternatively Otjiherero custom
and tradition and that the Farm was never awarded or dealt with in terms of Otjiherero
Customary law alternatively Otjiherero custom and tradition.
Page 10
[21] The defendants furthermore admitted that on 15 December 1988 and at Gobabis,
the Magistrate for the District of Gobabis appointed Erwin Kaune and Alfred Tjaimba in
terms of the provisions of Section 2(A) and (3) of Government Notice 70 of 1954 as
executors of the estate of the late Kaune and that Erwin Kaune, Alfred Tjaimba, Lazarus
Handura, Zephania Gertzen subsequently passed away. Subsequent to the passing
away of Erwin Kaune and Alfred Tjaimba, the Master, on 12 August 2010 duly
appointed Alwyn Petrus Van Straten as executor of the estate of the late Kaune as
contemplated by Section 3(3) of the Estate and Succession Amendment Act, 2005.
[22] Having briefly set out the essence of the pleadings I now turn to consider the
evidence tendered by and on behalf of the plaintiff.
The Evidence
[23] I will at the outset state that the plaintiff and his two witnesses took seven days to
testify. The evidence which I will summarize below is not an extensive restatement or
summary of the evidence tendered at the trial, but a very brief summary of the evidence
pertaining to the crux of the dispute between the parties. The first witness to testify on
behalf of the plaintiff was the plaintiff himself.
[24] The plaintiff testified that his late father, Phillipus Kaune, on 4 September 1979
purchased the Farm and that the Farm was registered in the name of the late Kaune on
03 March 1980 and the Farm is still so registered in the late Kaune’s name. On 10 April
1982 the late Kaune summoned him and his other siblings, namely Willemina Kaune,
Jogbeth Kamuhanga Kaune, Godfriedine Kaune Kambatuku and Victor Kaune to a
place called Otjoruharui in the Aminius Constituency where he informed all of them that
he (the late Kaune) had decided that the plaintiff would inherit the Farm if he
predeceased the plaintiff. The verbatim testimony, on this aspect, of the plaintiff was as
follows:
Page 11
‘…it was at this meeting of 1985 [he corrected the evidence to say the meeting took
place during 1982] that my late father stated in no uncertain terms that upon his death I,
Issaskar Kaune, was to inherit Farm Uithou. He made no mention of any other assets
and as to what would happen to them upon his death. The only thing that he mentioned
at this meeting was that I was to inherit the farm. That was his wish and he told all his
children that were at this meeting that they had to do everything possible to ensure that
his wish be carried into effect.’
[25] He proceeded and testified that his father passed away on the 30 th of June 1988
and that his father’s entire estate subsequently devolved in accordance with Otjiherero
Customary law. After his father’s death his father’s estate was distributed according to
Otjiherero custom and tradition. He testified that the livestock was distributed during
October 1990 two days apart. The cattle at the traditional homestead (i.e. at
Otjoruharui) were the first to be distributed and a day after those cattle were distributed
the cattle at the Farm were then distributed. He occupied the Farm for a period of
around 25 years as an owner of the Farm. The verbatim testimony of the plaintiff in this
regard was as follows:
‘…as I have already stated I inherited Farm Uithou according to Herero customary law
and tradition. I was given the farm by my late father. He clearly expressed his wish for
me to inherit the farm prior to his death. Upon his death I then inherited the farm. There
was no protest by any of my late father’s heirs that is the reason why from 1988 to 2007
there was no protest by any of my brothers, sisters or other heirs in respect of the farm.
I also highlight that even at the time when all the assets of my late father’s estate were
inherited by his heirs none of the heirs sought to inherit the farm. I inherited the farm
according to Herero customary law and tradition and this was confirmed by the family,
elders who oversaw the distribution of my father’s estate according to Herero customary
law and tradition.’
[26] In cross examination the plaintiff was asked what exactly his father allegedly said
to him during the meeting of 1982. I find it appropriate to reproduce verbatim the
questions to the plaintiff and the answer provided by the plaintiff.
Page 12
‘MR HEATHCOTE: …during 1982 you said you had a meeting where your father was
present ?
ANSWER: Yes my Lord.
MR HEATHCOTE: what words did he use?
ANSWER: He said I am now old and he is having a farm and he should give
the farm to someone who will which farm become the property of
that someone and who will then take further the farming activities
…
MR HEATHCOTE: I want you to repeat ... I want to get the exact wording.
ANSWER: ...he said … the farm should be given to me so that I will proceed
with the farming activities.
MR HEATHCOTE: Yes, try again, what were the words that your father used?
ANSWER: Call together Witnesses at Otjivemoro Farming to tell them
regarding the issue of the farm because he is now old or of age
that one day when he is no more the farm should be given to me.
MR HEATHCOTE: One day when he is no more the farm should be given to you?
ANSWER: Yes My Lord.
MR HEATHCOTE: … did your father speak Otjiherero on that day?
ANSWER: Yes he spoke Otjiherero My Lord.
MR HEATHCOTE: Is there a difference in Otjiherero language in using the word
inherit or I give to you?
ANSWER: It is when you give inheritance …Mekupe.
Page 13
MR HEATHCOTE: … what is the word ‘give’ in Otjiherero, I give to you? ... ---
ANSWER: Mekupe
MR HEATHCOTE: Okay we have got that and what is the word ‘you inherit from me’
in Otjiherero?
ANSWER: Okurumata eta. …
MR SCHICKERLING: I am going to ask you one more time, at the meeting on 10 April
1981, what were your father’s words? --
ANSWER: He said he is old and he is sick and he is having this farm that he
obtained lawfully and somebody must take over the day he is no
more and that person is Issaskar Kaune. And that is why I invited
you here so that you can hear this in this meeting the day I am no
more.
MR SCHICKERLING: In the whole of your testimony you referred to these words, give
take over, manage and inherit.
ANSWER: I was told my Lord when it was given to me and I inherited it at
the time of the distribution when I was made to inherit it by those
who were the executors distributing the estate.
MR SCHICKERLING: Did you not just misunderstand your father?
ANSWER: Maybe that I might not dispute My Lord because I am narrow
minded. My memory is short…’.
[27] The second witness to testify on behalf of the plaintiff was a certain Ms. Jogbeth
Kamuhanga Kaune who testified that she is the sister of the plaintiff because their
mothers were married to the late Kaune, her mother was the first wife of the late Kaune
and the plaintiff’s mother was his second wife. She testified that, on 10 April 1982, the
Page 14
late Kaune summoned her and her other siblings, namely Willemina Kaune, Issaskar
Kaune, Godfriedine Kaune Kambatuku and Victor Kaune to a place called Otjoruharui in
the Aminius Constituency. The witness later corrected herself and testified that Victor
Kaune was not invited to the meeting but he nonetheless attended the meeting.
[28] She proceeded to testify that at the meeting in Otjoruharui, the late Kaune made
it clear that the purpose of the meeting was for him to tell them what he had decided to
do with the farm and the livestock following his death. She testified that her siblings
which she mentioned attended that meeting where their father, the late Kaune, informed
them that he had decided that Issaskar Kaune should inherit the farm if he passes away
before Issaskar and that his animals have to be distributed fairly between his children
and his maternal and paternal relatives. In that meeting, her late father did not make
any wish regarding the homestead, the holy cattle and other customary holy items in the
family such as the holy calabash, the holy fire, the gun, the chair and the hat. The
meeting was only attended by the aforementioned children of the late Kaune and there
was no one else at that meeting.
[29] She testified that following her late father’s death and burial, arrangements were
made to ensure that the estate of her late father was distributed. After her father’s death
her father’s estate was distributed according to Otjiherero custom and tradition. She
furthermore testified that the livestock was distributed during October 1990 two days
apart. The cattle at the traditional homestead (i.e. at Otjoruharui) were the first to be
distributed and a day after those cattle were distributed the cattle at the Farm were then
distributed. In cross-examination she testified that she was not present when the
livestock which was at the Farm were distributed.
[30] The third witness to testify on behalf of the plaintiff was a certain Ms. Gottfriedine
Kaune Kambatuku who testified that she is the sister and mother of the plaintiff. She is
the sister to the plaintiff because their mothers were married to the late Kaune, her
mother was the first wife of the late Kaune and the plaintiff’s mother was his second
wife. She testified that she was the mother to the plaintiff because after her mother
Page 15
passed on, her father married his second wife who was her half-sister (she was her
mother’s child but not her father’s child).
[31] This witness testified that, on 20 August 1982, the late Kaune summoned her
and her other siblings, namely Willemina Kaune, Issaskar Kaune, Jogbeth Kamuhanga
Kaune and Victor Kaune to a place called Otjoruharui in the Aminius Constituency. She
testified that the purpose of the meeting was for him to tell them what he had decided to
do with the Farm and the livestock following his death. She initially testified that at the
meeting her late father informed them that Issaskar Kaune should inherit the Farm if he
passed away before Issaskar and that his animals have to be distributed fairly and
equally between his children and his maternal and paternal relatives. She corrected
herself and testified that at the meeting her father told them that he called them to
inform them that he had given the Farm to Issaskar. I will quote verbatim what she said;
‘My Lord the day our father called us to the meeting he informed us that my children I
called you here today I am sick and I have become of age and I am here to inform you
today that I have given this farm and not that I will give it, but that I have given this farm
to Issaskar Kaune, and I have called you here so that you should know and hear from
me and not only after my death but directly from me that I have given the farm to
Issaskar. Now with regard to the holy cattle, the holy calabash, the firearm or the gun,
and the holy fire and all the other items My Lord were not given to anybody but it was
only distributed during the estate or given during the distribution of the estate.’
[32] During her testimony the witness kept testifying that Issaskar inherited the farm
even though she had corrected herself and testified that her father called them to tell
them that he had given the Farm to the plaintiff. Because of this uncertainty I paused
and asked her to clarify to me what her father actually said to them. The exchange
between the court and this witness was as follows:
‘COURT: Do I hear you correct Ms. Kambatuku you are saying at the meeting
which you allege was on 20 August 1982 your father did not speak about
a wish he spoke about what he did?
Page 16
ANSWER: That is correct my Lord.
COURT: You were also saying he did not mention anything about any inheritance?
ANSWER: He did not mention anything as to who should inherit to what extent he
only mentioned the giving.
[33] During cross examination she was again asked about what her father said at the
meeting which she alleged took place on 20 August 1982 she was steadfast that the
purpose of the meeting was for her father to tell them what he has done with the Farm.
She insisted that her late father (the late Kaune) called them to inform them that he has
given the farm to Issaskar Kaune and for them to hear that he has given the Farm to
Issaskar.
[34] The above was the crux of the plaintiff’s testimony. I will therefore proceed to
consider whether the plaintiff has placed admissible evidence before court to ward off
an application for absolution.
Should absolution be granted or refused.
[35] It is clear from the particulars of claim, that plaintiff relies on a statement or a
wish allegedly made or expressed by his father that entitles him to, in accordance with
Otjiherero Customary law alternatively Otjiherero custom and tradition claim that he
acquired ownership of the Farm. In either event at a trial, plaintiff must prove that his
late father made the statement or expressed the wish that he, the plaintiff is to inherit
the Farm if the father predeceases the plaintiff. The second fact which the plaintiff must
prove is that he did in accordance with Otjiherero Customary law alternatively Otjiherero
custom and tradition inherit the Farm. The onus is on the plaintiff.
[36] At this stage in an application for absolution, the plaintiff, as in the present
circumstances need not show that as a fact or that on the balance of probabilities, the
Court will find that his father, the late Kaune, made the statement or expressed the wish
that on his death the plaintiff must inherit the Farm. All the plaintiff has to do is to show
Page 17
that there is sufficient admissible evidence which shows that a reasonable Court might
find that the late Kaune made the statement or expressed the wish that if he, the late
Kaune, predeceases the plaintiff the plaintiff must inherit the Farm. Therefore:
(a) If the evidence shows that the late Kaune did not make the statement or did not
express the wish that if he, the late Kaune, predeceases the plaintiff the plaintiff
must inherit the Farm. or
(b) If the plaintiff fails to lead evidence to show that the late Kaune might have made
the statement or might have expressed the wish that if he, the late Kaune,
predeceases the plaintiff the plaintiff must inherit the Farm then the defendant is
entitled to absolution from the instance.
[37] I have above briefly summarized the evidence which the plaintiff placed before
this Court. That evidence of the plaintiff apart from being riddled with internal
inconsistencies and contradictions, the evidence is also in contradiction with the
evidence of one his witnesses. The internal inconsistencies and contradictions that I am
referring to are the evidence that:
(a) ‘He [the late Kaune] is old and he is sick and he is having this farm that he
obtained lawfully and somebody must take over the day he is no more and that
person is Issaskar Kaune.’
(b) ‘Call together Witnesses at Otjivemoro Farming to tell them regarding the issue
of the farm because he is now old or of age that one day when he is no more the
farm should be given to me.’
(c) ‘At this meeting of 1982 that my late father stated in no uncertain terms that
upon his death I, Issaskar Kaune, was to inherit Farm Uithou.’
(d) The admission by the plaintiff that he made a written offer to the 27 th defendant in
his capacity as executor of the estate of the late Kaune, to purchase the Farm
from the estate of the late Kaune for an amount of one million Namibia Dollars.
Page 18
[38] Ms. Kambatuku who was called by the plaintiff came and testified that at the
meeting at which her father, the late Kaune, discussed the Farm, the late Kaune did not
speak about any inheritance, he summoned them to inform them what he has already
done and for them to hear from him and not for them to hear it after his death. She
testified that he stated that he had already given the Farm to Issaskar Kaune. This
evidence clearly contradicts the evidence of both Jogbeth Kaune Kamuhanga and the
plaintiff in so far as they testified that the late Kaune expressed a wish that his Farm
must be inherited by the plaintiff if he, the late Kaune, predeceased the plaintiff. The
reliability of the plaintiff’s recollection of what his father may have said at the meeting at
which the issue of the Farm was discussed, was fatally compromised by the plaintiff’s
admission that he was confused and may have misunderstood his father. There is,
therefore, in my view no admissible evidence as regards to what the late Kaune said at
the meeting with some of his children.
[39] Article 66 of the Namibian Constitution provides that both the customary law and
the common law of Namibia in force on the date of Independence shall remain valid to
the extent to which such customary or common law does not conflict with the
Constitution or any other statutory law. It is clear that Otjiherero customary law is part of
the law of our country and thus need not be proven, the Court can take judicial notice;
by informing itself from history books or literature, but the same cannot be said about
Otjiherero custom and tradition. In the matter Kaputuaza and Another v Executive
Committee of the Administration for the Hereros and Another15 Bethune J said:
‘The customs observed in the reserve (as opposed to customary law) can be proved in
the same manner as any other custom, i.e. by ordinary persons who have knowledge of
the nature of the customs and the period over which they have been observed. It has
authoritatively been held that the party relying on such a custom must prove it beyond
reasonable doubt (Van Breda and Others v Jacobs and Others 1921 AD 330 at 333).’
[40] The difficulty with the plaintiff’s case as regards the Otjiherero customary law or
Otjiherero custom and tradition with respect to succession and inheritance is that the
plaintiff did not refer me to any book or literature where the Otjiherero customary law 15 1984 (4) SA 295 (SWA).
Page 19
with respect to inheritance and succession (whether testate or intestate) is outlined and
I could also not find any. It thus follows that I have, in that regard, to rely on our
common or statutory law.
[41] As regards Otjiherero custom and tradition relating to the inheritance of
immovable property the plaintiff’s witnesses spent considerable time testifying how the
movable assets of the late Kaune were distributed amongst his heirs and that Issaskar
Kaune inherited the Farm in accordance with Otjiherero custom and tradition. They
needed to do more than that, as Bethune J said they needed to demonstrate their
knowledge of the nature of the customs and the period over which they have observed
that custom and tradition. The plaintiff, in my view, therefore did not place a single piece
of evidence before court as to what the nature of the custom is and the period over
which that custom or tradition has been observed.
[42] As regards the plaintiff’s claim that there were no assets in the estate of the late
Kaune and therefore the appointment of Mr. Van Straten was invalid the witness did not
put any shred of evidence before court as to how, in the Otjiherero custom and tradition,
ownership in respect of the immovable property passes from one person to another. I
have, above, indicated that the content of what the Otjiherero customary law is was not
argued before me. In our common law the position appears to be that an heir does not
upon the death of a testator acquire the ownership of the assets of the deceased but
merely has a vested claim against the executor for payment, delivery, or transfer of the
property comprising the inheritance and his claim is only enforceable when the
liquidation and distribution account has been confirmed. The heir in fact becomes owner
of the immovable property only on delivery of it or of immovable property upon
registration.16 The transfer of ownership in respect of immovable property is governed
by the Deeds Registries Act, 193717 , s 16 of that Act provides as follows:
‘16 How real rights shall be transferred
16 See the case of Estate Smith v Estate Follett 1942 AD 367 at 385.17 Act 47 of 1937.
Page 20
Save as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law the ownership of land may be
conveyed from one person to another only by means of a deed of transfer executed or
attested by the registrar, and other real rights in land may be conveyed from one person
to another only by means of a deed of cession attested by a notary public and registered
by the registrar: Provided that notarial attestation shall not be necessary in respect of the
conveyance of real rights acquired under a mortgage bond: Provided further that where
the State acquires all the land held under any title deed, the registrar shall make such
alterations and entries in his registers and such endorsements on such title deed as may
be necessary to register transfer to the State of the property so acquired free of charge.’
[43] The evidence before court, testified to by all the three witnesses for the plaintiff
was that the Farm is still registered in the name of the late Kaune. It means that the
estate of the late Kaune has not been conclusively liquidated and distributed. The
appointment of Mr. Van Straten is therefore a valid administrative act performed by the
Master.
[44] To sum up there is no admissible evidence on record that the late Kaune, made
the statement or expressed the wish that on his death the plaintiff must inherit the Farm.
Furthermore, there is no indication, not the slightest what the Otjiherero Customary
Law, Otjiherero custom and tradition with respect to succession and inheritance is.
Thirdly there is on record no evidence whatsoever that there are no assets in the estate
of the late Kaune. In fact the contrary appears to be the case. For all these reasons no
reasonable Court could or might give judgment in plaintiff's favour.
Costs
[45] There is no reason why costs should not follow the result. The plaintiff must
therefore be ordered to pay the costs of the defendants in this court on the basis of one
instructing and two instructed counsel.
Order
[46] I accordingly make the following order:
Page 21
1. The defendants are absolved from the instance.
2. The plaintiff must pay the costs incurred by the defendants, such cost to include
the costs:
(a) In respect of the 4th -19th, 21st -23rd and 26th defendants. The cost, of one
instructing and one instructed counsel.
(b) In respect of the 27th and 28th defendants the costs of one instructing and two
instructed counsels.
---------------------------------
SFI Ueitele
Judge
Page 22
APPEARANCES:
PLAINTIFF: T Phatela
Instructed by Dr Weder Kauta & Hoveka,
Windhoek
4TH TO 19TH, 21ST TO 23RD AND 26TH
DEFENDANTS: J Schickerling.
Instructed by Engling Stritter & Partners,
Windhoek
27 TH DEFENDANT R Heathcote (assisted by J Jacobs)
Instructed by Van der Merwe Andima,
Windhoek
28TH DEFENDANTS G Hinda (assisted by G Narib).
Page 23