submit documentary proof. Even the report from FCS on which the plaintiff relied on heavily found a number of payments and lack of proof thereof questionable. [54] It was further put to the plaintiff that she received money from Inland Revenue/Ministry of Finance, an amount of NAD 528 791.63 for input VAT claimed by the third defendant and the plaintiff kept it for herself. Plaintiff agrees that the registered vendor was the third defendant and said monies were paid into the account of Medibuild Investment CC held at Standard Bank, which was the account, which she had plaintiff’s sole control of. Plaintiff confirmed that at the time the plaintiff was not registered with Receiver of Revenue as VAT vendor and could not remember whether such amount was ever transferred into her personal account. Mr Namandje put it to the witness that if she was not personally registered, then she was not entitled to the input VAT that she claimed at the relevant time. Plaintiff answered in the affirmative. Therefore the second defendants contends that such money belongs to the 3rd Defendant and plaintiff defrauded the third defendant. [55] It is the that she used the money from Ministry of Finance for Plaintiff’s case construction costs, which is the money she is still claiming from the defendants. It is the evidence that when the first and second defendants resigned in May 2005, she plaintiff’s was the sole owner of the third defendant and the VAT refund from Ministry of Finance was for construction costs as she conducted her construction business through the CC/third defendant. It was emphasized on behalf of the second defendant that there is no evidence to show that the money received from Ministry of Finance, which belonged to the third defendant, was used for construction on behalf of the third defendant or the other constructions which she was busy with. plaintiff’s [56] It was determined under cross examination that while the plaintiff was the sole member of the third defendant, she used the CC/third defendant for her other projects and constructions costs. Plaintiff was questioned as to whether income was generated in respect of these other projects and she answered in the affirmative. It was then put to her that this means the third defendant made income but there are no books or records to
submit documentary proof. Even the report from FCS on which the plaintiff relied on heavily found a number of payments and lack of proof thereof questionable. [54] It was further put to the plaintiff that she received money from Inland Revenue/Ministry of Finance, an amount of NAD 528 791.63 for input VAT claimed by the third defendant and the plaintiff kept it for herself. Plaintiff agrees that the registered vendor was the third defendant and said monies were paid into the account of Medibuild Investment CC held at Standard Bank, which was the plaintiff’s account, which she had sole control of. Plaintiff confirmed that at the time the plaintiff was not registered with Receiver of Revenue as VAT vendor and could not remember whether such amount was ever transferred into her personal account. Mr Namandje put it to the witness that if she was not personally registered, then she was not entitled to the input VAT that she claimed at the relevant time. Plaintiff answered in the affirmative. Therefore the second defendants contends that such money belongs to the 3rd Defendant and plaintiff defrauded the third defendant. [55] It is the Plaintiff’s case that she used the money from Ministry of Finance for construction costs, which is the money she is still claiming from the defendants. It is the plaintiff’s evidence that when the first and second defendants resigned in May 2005, she was the sole owner of the third defendant and the VAT refund from Ministry of Finance was for construction costs as she conducted her construction business through the CC/third defendant. It was emphasized on behalf of the second defendant that there is no evidence to show that the money received from Ministry of Finance, which belonged to the third defendant, was used for construction on behalf of the third defendant or the plaintiff’s other constructions which she was busy with. [56] It was determined under cross examination that while the plaintiff was the sole member of the third defendant, she used the CC/third defendant for her other projects and constructions costs. Plaintiff was questioned as to whether income was generated in respect of these other projects and she answered in the affirmative. It was then put to her that this means the third defendant made income but there are no books or records to