Oremeng's Riverwalk claim up for September

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE
Staff Writer | Monday August 30, 2010 00:00

Lobatse High Court judge, Michael Leburu, on Friday set the case for September 27 after hearing from the attorneys for both parties. It is expected that the attorneys will have to advance reasons why the court should award the amount of money that Oremeng wants. In the lawsuit, Oremeng wants compensation for loss of a piece of land where Riverwalk Mall stands today.

Oremeng relies on a judgment that was handed down by the then Gaborone Village Chief Magistrate, Lot Moroka.In his judgment, Moroka ruled that Mhlauli abused his authority as permanent secretary, thereby prejudicing Oremeng to get the Riverwalk plot to which he was entitled, but instead caused the plot to be allocated to Eddie Norman under what was described as 'a classic case of corruption'. During the trial, land experts from the department of lands said Oremeng's application was the first and that his business proposal was superior to that of Norman.

In an earlier interview, Oremeng said that the magistrates' court had made a determination that the piece of land was corruptly allocated and that this would be the thrust of his argument in the suit. 'Mhlauli knew about this and the minister knew this too. I made several representations to the minister and I was simply brushed aside,' complained Oremeng.

'These are people who should have known better, but they chose to ignore me. A wrong has been done and it must be corrected,' he said in a previous interview. Oremeng said he did not want Riverwalk Mall to be demolished because it would cause irreparable harm to employees, investors, the community and the banks that have invested in this ill gotten plot. In the heads of argument that were filed before the court, both the government and Mhlauli's lawyer have already put the spanner in Oremeng's case.

They both contend that Oremeng slept on his rights. 'A claim for damages under the law prescribes or expires within a stipulated period within which claimants can invoke their rights and Oremeng,' they say, 'acted outside the prescribed period'.

The state argues that while the action that Oremeng complains of was taken in 1998, he is only invoking his rights to a claim on 12 October 2009, a period that falls way outside the prescribed limit. In defence, Oremeng, who is represented by Isaac Seloko Attorneys, raises a special plea.

He argues that prior to judgment, he did not know who the debtor was, and for that reason he could not act.'More than one person is implicated in the judgment of the magistrate court and the plaintiff in this case only got to know his proper debtor from the judgment, hence he sued after the judgment. 'It is submitted therefore that he is excused by this reason to have waited until after the judgment, to eschew defences such as non-joinder, misjoinder or non-suitor,' Seloko argued.  Monthe Marumo attorneys represent the Attorney General.