High Court to decide Riverwalk plot case

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE
Staff Writer | Tuesday September 28, 2010 00:00

 

The attorney for the government, Charles Gulubane, told the court yesterday that according to the Prescription Act, 'the action for claim should have been made from the date when the wrong upon which the claim for damages is based was first brought to the knowledge of the creditor, or from the date when the creditor might reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of such wrong, whichever is the earlier date'.

Gulubane submitted that the action should have been made at least in 2000 when Oremeng knew that the former permanent secretary in the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, Elvidge Mhlauli, has wronged him by allocating land to someone else.

He further told the court that all material facts have long been available for Oremeng to kick start his claim during the prescribed period but failed to do so.

He told the court that Mhlauli and Oremeng also conspired in a High Court application, whose intention was to wrestle the land away from its lawful owner, Eddy Norman.

'Mhlauli once told Oremeng that he prejudiced him by awarding a piece of land where Riverwalk Mall stands,' Gulubane said. He dismissed Oremeng's claim that the identity of the person who wronged him (Oremeng) came to light after Mhlauli's conviction in 2008.

'If the conviction of Mhlauli found his claim then his acquittal must as well wash it away,' Gulubane stressed.Attorney for Mhlauli, Rueben Lekorwe, agreed with Gulubane.

Lekorwe stressed that under the Prescription Act, the claim for damage can only be made within three years. 'In this case, Oremeng has waited 12 years to institute his claim. As such this case must be dismissed forth right with costs,' Lekorwe submitted.

He further submitted that if at all there was confusion of who to sue by Oremeng, he should have at least sued the government or Eddy Norman as he was the one allocated land.

He stressed that 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'.

Lekorwe stated 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 period.

However, Oremeng's attorney Simwe Mwiya of Isaac Seloko Attorneys, argued that prior to the judgment by the magistrate, he did not know who the debtor was and for that reason he could not act.

Mwiya pointed out that more than one persons are implicated in the judgment of the magistrates court and the plaintiff in this case only got to know his proper debtor from the judgment, hence he sued after the judgment. High Court Judge, Michael Leburu, will deliver judgement November 18.