Inventors sue Unam for N$35bn over alleged idea theft
Pair claim to have lost billions in investments
Michael Nenkavu and Benedictus Nashenda claim they created a powdered medicinal formula to treat cancer and other ailments.
Two Namibian men have dragged the University of Namibia (Unam) to the High Court, claiming the institution stole their medicinal invention and caused losses of N$35 billion over 14 years.
The lawsuit, filed by Michael Nenkavu and Benedictus Nashenda, also cites former president and Unam chancellor Nangolo Mbumba and vice-chancellor Kenneth Matengu as respondents.
The pair allege they created a powdered medicinal formula to treat cancer, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol and septic wounds, which they submitted to Unam for scientific testing. Instead, they claim, the university attempted to secretly patent their invention, withheld critical test results, and blocked the release of N$210,000 belonging to their company, Katakura Company cc.
According to their particulars of claim, this alleged sabotage scuppered a potential N$1 billion investment from China’s Beijing Cancer Hospital, which required certified reports before committing to the deal.
Allegations against Unam
The inventors accuse Unam of patent infringement, breach of confidentiality, misappropriation of intellectual property, reputational harm and deliberate sabotage. They argue that the withheld results and stalled processes denied them entry into both local and international pharmaceutical markets.
“The investment was expressly conditional upon Katakura Company furnishing the investor with scientific reports from the Beijing Cancer Hospital and Academy,” their court documents state.
Chronology of claimed losses
In their court filing, the inventors presented a year-by-year breakdown of damages they say stemmed from Unam’s conduct. They claim that in 2011 alone, they lost N$1 billion when a joint venture with a Chinese investor collapsed because they could not provide the required certified reports. The following year, in 2012, they missed out on foundational research funding and early commercialisation partnerships, resulting in an additional N$1.5 billion loss. In 2013, delays in local regulatory support for formulation approval, which they blame on suppressed data, cost them a further N$1 billion.
Their claim continues into 2014, when they say obstruction in accessing lab test results for international submissions caused damages worth N$1 billion. In 2015, damaged investor confidence due to unresolved intellectual property ownership allegedly led to another N$2 billion in losses. The year 2016 brought further setbacks, with blocked entry into regional pharmaceutical networks costing them N$1.5 billion, while in 2017 they estimate losses of N$2 billion from missed licensing opportunities in SADC medical procurement markets.
By 2018, the alleged damages had escalated, with the inventors claiming to have lost N$5 billion in commercial licensing opportunities both locally and abroad. In 2019, they say reputational harm from misappropriation of their work added another N$2 billion in damages. The financial toll continued into 2020, with the pair citing N$3.5 billion lost in research and development funding.
The alleged misuse of their formulation in 2021 is said to have cost them N$4.4 billion, while in 2022 they point to N$6 billion lost due to delayed global patent expansion. In 2023, they estimate damages of N$5.5 billion from lost medical partnerships. In 2024, they claim N$2.5 billion was lost through reputational damage and mental anguish, while in 2025 they project a further N$500 million in lost future income.
Altogether, Nenkavu and Nashenda say these cumulative losses amount to N$35 billion. They argue that Unam’s actions left them without scientific credibility, investor backing or market access, despite what they describe as the formula’s “groundbreaking potential.”
Unam yesterday told Namibian Sun that it cannot respond to the questions raised as the summons have not yet been formally served on the institution. The university added that once served, its position will be outlined in the pleadings, if necessary.
The lawsuit, filed by Michael Nenkavu and Benedictus Nashenda, also cites former president and Unam chancellor Nangolo Mbumba and vice-chancellor Kenneth Matengu as respondents.
The pair allege they created a powdered medicinal formula to treat cancer, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol and septic wounds, which they submitted to Unam for scientific testing. Instead, they claim, the university attempted to secretly patent their invention, withheld critical test results, and blocked the release of N$210,000 belonging to their company, Katakura Company cc.
According to their particulars of claim, this alleged sabotage scuppered a potential N$1 billion investment from China’s Beijing Cancer Hospital, which required certified reports before committing to the deal.
Allegations against Unam
The inventors accuse Unam of patent infringement, breach of confidentiality, misappropriation of intellectual property, reputational harm and deliberate sabotage. They argue that the withheld results and stalled processes denied them entry into both local and international pharmaceutical markets.
“The investment was expressly conditional upon Katakura Company furnishing the investor with scientific reports from the Beijing Cancer Hospital and Academy,” their court documents state.
Chronology of claimed losses
In their court filing, the inventors presented a year-by-year breakdown of damages they say stemmed from Unam’s conduct. They claim that in 2011 alone, they lost N$1 billion when a joint venture with a Chinese investor collapsed because they could not provide the required certified reports. The following year, in 2012, they missed out on foundational research funding and early commercialisation partnerships, resulting in an additional N$1.5 billion loss. In 2013, delays in local regulatory support for formulation approval, which they blame on suppressed data, cost them a further N$1 billion.
Their claim continues into 2014, when they say obstruction in accessing lab test results for international submissions caused damages worth N$1 billion. In 2015, damaged investor confidence due to unresolved intellectual property ownership allegedly led to another N$2 billion in losses. The year 2016 brought further setbacks, with blocked entry into regional pharmaceutical networks costing them N$1.5 billion, while in 2017 they estimate losses of N$2 billion from missed licensing opportunities in SADC medical procurement markets.
By 2018, the alleged damages had escalated, with the inventors claiming to have lost N$5 billion in commercial licensing opportunities both locally and abroad. In 2019, they say reputational harm from misappropriation of their work added another N$2 billion in damages. The financial toll continued into 2020, with the pair citing N$3.5 billion lost in research and development funding.
The alleged misuse of their formulation in 2021 is said to have cost them N$4.4 billion, while in 2022 they point to N$6 billion lost due to delayed global patent expansion. In 2023, they estimate damages of N$5.5 billion from lost medical partnerships. In 2024, they claim N$2.5 billion was lost through reputational damage and mental anguish, while in 2025 they project a further N$500 million in lost future income.
Altogether, Nenkavu and Nashenda say these cumulative losses amount to N$35 billion. They argue that Unam’s actions left them without scientific credibility, investor backing or market access, despite what they describe as the formula’s “groundbreaking potential.”
Unam yesterday told Namibian Sun that it cannot respond to the questions raised as the summons have not yet been formally served on the institution. The university added that once served, its position will be outlined in the pleadings, if necessary.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article