[22] Because of the nature of her work, she was aware of the written agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the first defendant on or about 5 March 2015 at Rundu in terms of which the plaintiff would lent money to the first defendant in the amount of N$1 875 554.00. [23] I can mention here that it is not in dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant that a document handed in and marked as Exhibit was signed by “A”, officials of both the plaintiff and the first defendant constitutes the written agreement between them which Mr Bursa also refers to in her evidence. – [24] Similarly, the contents of that written agreement (Exh. are not in dispute. “A”) [25] Further, Ms Bursa stated that the agreement, in clause 4.1 provides that the plaintiff would pay the supplier directly and that this was a common term in all their contracts to ensure that the funds the plaintiff gives are not utilised for other things than for purposes the funds were given to clients. [26] However, most part of her evidence was covered in the evidence of Mr Abrahams, who dealt with the defendants personally. In addition, Ms Bursa testified about the terms and conditions of the written loan agreement, namely, interest rate, the plaintiff’s based rate plus 10% calculated daily on the loan amount payable on monthly basis by the first defendant starting from the last day of the month of the first draw down. Thereafter on the last day of each and every consecutive month. [27] It is her evidence further that in the event of the first defendant failing to pay on the due date, such overdue amounts would be an additional finance charge of 2% per annum compounded monthly from the date of payment to the plaintiff. [28] As already indicated, the second witness called by the plaintiff to testify, is Richard Manfred Abrahams. Mr Abrahams also read his pre-prepared statement into record of proceedings forming his evidence in chief.
[22] Because of the nature of her work, she was aware of the written agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the first defendant on or about 5 March 2015 at Rundu in terms of which the plaintiff would lent money to the first defendant in the amount of N$1 875 554.00. [23] I can mention here that it is not in dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant that a document handed in and marked as Exhibit “A”, was signed by officials of both the plaintiff and the first defendant constitutes the written agreement between them – which Mr Bursa also refers to in her evidence. [24] Similarly, the contents of that written agreement (Exh. “A”) are not in dispute. [25] Further, Ms Bursa stated that the agreement, in clause 4.1 provides that the plaintiff would pay the supplier directly and that this was a common term in all their contracts to ensure that the funds the plaintiff gives are not utilised for other things than for purposes the funds were given to clients. [26] However, most part of her evidence was covered in the evidence of Mr Abrahams, who dealt with the defendants personally. In addition, Ms Bursa testified about the terms and conditions of the written loan agreement, namely, interest rate, the plaintiff’s based rate plus 10% calculated daily on the loan amount payable on monthly basis by the first defendant starting from the last day of the month of the first draw down. Thereafter on the last day of each and every consecutive month. [27] It is her evidence further that in the event of the first defendant failing to pay on the due date, such overdue amounts would be an additional finance charge of 2% per annum compounded monthly from the date of payment to the plaintiff. [28] As already indicated, the second witness called by the plaintiff to testify, is Richard Manfred Abrahams. Mr Abrahams also read his pre-prepared statement into record of proceedings forming his evidence in chief.
Development%20Bank%20of%20Namibia%20v%20Name%20Nove%20Construction%20CC%20(I%201372-2016)%20[2017]%20NAHCMD%20189%20(14%20July%202017).docx