lapsed after the expiration of the 2 year period in the initial lease agreement. The parties proceeded to reiterate their respective stances in subsequent correspondence. The first respondent thereafter on or about 30 July 2010 proposed a second renewal of the lease for a period of 6 months commencing 1 August 2010 to permit time for the necessary approvals from the Ministers for the sale of the premises as proposed by the board. This offer was rejected by the applicant in a letter of 11 August 2010, claiming that the first respondent was in breach of the agreements by failing to sign a purchase agreement pursuant to its purported exercise of the option. The letter of that date threatened applicant’s legal action if this was not done within 15 days and also gave notice that a special costs order of attorney and own client would be sought in those proceedings. It thus rejected the proposed extension of the lease but expressed the view that the lease would continue until ownership had been passed to it. The first respondent responded to the applicant on 23 August 2010, making it clear that the failure to renew the lease agreement resulted in it lapsing at the end of July 2010, reiterating its position previously articulated in correspondence. The parties proceeded to debate the issue in subsequent correspondence, reiterating previous positions. On 30 May 2011 the Minister of Finance informed the first respondent that the Cabinet of the Government of Namibia had directed that the first respondent should offer the premises at a market related price which had been determined pursuant to a valuation to be in the sum of N$40 494 141. The applicant on 22 July 2011 responded by reiterating its stance and forwarded a signed purchase agreement to the first respondent for the sum of N$15 million. The applicant did not however take any legal action in support of its position and it was the first respondent which finally brought the eviction proceedings in May 2012. It was accepted by this court with reference to authority that the point of departure, after the applicant having admitted the first ownership of the premises, was that it was for the applicant to respondent’s
lapsed after the expiration of the 2 year period in the initial lease agreement. The parties proceeded to reiterate their respective stances in subsequent correspondence. The first respondent thereafter on or about 30 July 2010 proposed a second renewal of the lease for a period of 6 months commencing 1 August 2010 to permit time for the necessary approvals from the Ministers for the sale of the premises as proposed by the board. This offer was rejected by the applicant in a letter of 11 August 2010, claiming that the first respondent was in breach of the agreements by failing to sign a purchase agreement pursuant to its purported exercise of the option. The applicant’s letter of that date threatened legal action if this was not done within 15 days and also gave notice that a special costs order of attorney and own client would be sought in those proceedings. It thus rejected the proposed extension of the lease but expressed the view that the lease would continue until ownership had been passed to it. The first respondent responded to the applicant on 23 August 2010, making it clear that the failure to renew the lease agreement resulted in it lapsing at the end of July 2010, reiterating its position previously articulated in correspondence. The parties proceeded to debate the issue in subsequent correspondence, reiterating previous positions. On 30 May 2011 the Minister of Finance informed the first respondent that the Cabinet of the Government of Namibia had directed that the first respondent should offer the premises at a market related price which had been determined pursuant to a valuation to be in the sum of N$40 494 141. The applicant on 22 July 2011 responded by reiterating its stance and forwarded a signed purchase agreement to the first respondent for the sum of N$15 million. The applicant did not however take any legal action in support of its position and it was the first respondent which finally brought the eviction proceedings in May 2012. It was accepted by this court with reference to authority that the point of departure, after the applicant having admitted the first respondent’s ownership of the premises, was that it was for the applicant to
Witvlei%20Meat%20(Pty)%20Ltd%20v%20The%20Agricultural%20Bank%20of%20Namibia%20and%20Another%20Others%20(A%20220-2012)%20%5B2013%5D%20NAHCMD%20216%20(26%20July%202013).docx