Agribank, hunting farm battle over millions
Agribank wants to seize a hunting farm because of missed instalments, despite having signed a repayment agreement with the owners.
Agribank and a prominent hunting farm are at legal loggerheads over millions of dollars.
In papers before the court, Agribank is claiming over N$34 million, while Annelie and George le Roux, the owners of Kassandara Hunting and Safaris, are defending the action.
In its particulars, filed on 22 March, Agribank asked for a judgment for the payment of the outstanding debts, and the execution of Farm 40, known as Kassandara, which is 8 836 hectares in size and located in the Erongo Region.
According to the bank, the Le Roux couple signed four loan agreements with them on 25 October 2013.
The first was for N$650 000 for the provision of renewable water and energy, the second for N$3 850 000 was for the construction of a lodge facility, the third for N$17 150 000 was for a complete takeover of debts at Bank Windhoek and the fourth was for N$1 million workers' quarters.
The loans were repayable over different periods, some 15 and some 20 years, and interest rates also varied.
At all times, Agribank says, the bond for the property was registered in favour of the bank at a value of N$22 650 000, including N$4 350 000 as security costs.
Both George and Annelie le Roux signed unlimited surety for these loans.
Agribank told the court that on 8 February it consolidated the amounts outstanding in terms of the four agreements and it reached the sum of N$34 336 057.46.
It added that despite demand or summons constituting demand, no payment was made, despite being due.
The Le Roux couple, in April, filed their notice of intention to defend. The matter went quiet and then on 13 June, Agribank gave instruction to its counsel, Jana-Marie van Zyl from Etzold and Duvenhage, to apply for a summary judgment from the High Court. Van Zyl communicated this to Abe Naudé of Weder, Kauta and Hoveka, counsel for the Le Rouxs, and in the same letter, asked whether there is a bona fide defence, or alternatively, an offer for an amicable settlement.
It was then that the Le Roux couple met with Agribank.
In his founding affidavit submitted on 2 August, George told the court they have a bona fide defence and further admitted to having “failed timeously to pay some of the instalments due”.
However, he said they had held a meeting with the CEO, chief financial officer and the head of specialised financing of the bank on 21 June, some three months after the initial summons was issued against him and his wife.
“I requested agreement on a temporary arrangement of the instalments payable and a withdrawal or stay of the action in the meantime.”
According to Le Roux, an agreement was in fact signed whereby they would make monthly payments of N$20 000 starting end of June and would settle all the arrears by 29 March next year with money generated from a subdivision and development project on the farm and the sale of those share blocks.
That document forms part of the papers filed by Le Roux. Proof of payments made at the end of June and July are also included.
He told the court the fact that Agribank had persisted in its action reflects a lack of bona fides, adding the application should be dismissed in light of the agreement signed. He also said they do not agree with the sum claimed, adding they would engage an accountant to recalculate the amount owed to Agribank.
Le Roux also made mention of email correspondence, also included in his papers. In this correspondence, the bank's chief financial officer Alfred Simasiku said the action was not to be cancelled, as Le Roux had written, but rather would be 'on hold' and furthermore, the agreement signed between the Le Roux couple and the bank would be sent to their legal department once drafted.
According to correspondence between the bank and the Le Roux couple's counsel, Naudé, they had been blacklisted, while Agribank's “claims are not due, owing or payable”.
“And what bothers our clients the most is that they were unlawfully blacklisted, apparently by [the bank] and that [the bank] refuses to withdraw the blacklisting.
“This unfortunate state of affairs is to the prejudice of our clients. Our clients are also consequently prejudiced in the raising of funds or capital for the development contemplated on the property while the blacklisting remains,” Naudé wrote on 29 June.
The matter seems to have stalled again with some relief for the Le Roux couple. Yesterday, before Judge Boas Usiku, the parties agreed that Agribank would withdraw its application for a summary judgement and it was given a month to decide further, if any, action.
YANNA SMITH
In papers before the court, Agribank is claiming over N$34 million, while Annelie and George le Roux, the owners of Kassandara Hunting and Safaris, are defending the action.
In its particulars, filed on 22 March, Agribank asked for a judgment for the payment of the outstanding debts, and the execution of Farm 40, known as Kassandara, which is 8 836 hectares in size and located in the Erongo Region.
According to the bank, the Le Roux couple signed four loan agreements with them on 25 October 2013.
The first was for N$650 000 for the provision of renewable water and energy, the second for N$3 850 000 was for the construction of a lodge facility, the third for N$17 150 000 was for a complete takeover of debts at Bank Windhoek and the fourth was for N$1 million workers' quarters.
The loans were repayable over different periods, some 15 and some 20 years, and interest rates also varied.
At all times, Agribank says, the bond for the property was registered in favour of the bank at a value of N$22 650 000, including N$4 350 000 as security costs.
Both George and Annelie le Roux signed unlimited surety for these loans.
Agribank told the court that on 8 February it consolidated the amounts outstanding in terms of the four agreements and it reached the sum of N$34 336 057.46.
It added that despite demand or summons constituting demand, no payment was made, despite being due.
The Le Roux couple, in April, filed their notice of intention to defend. The matter went quiet and then on 13 June, Agribank gave instruction to its counsel, Jana-Marie van Zyl from Etzold and Duvenhage, to apply for a summary judgment from the High Court. Van Zyl communicated this to Abe Naudé of Weder, Kauta and Hoveka, counsel for the Le Rouxs, and in the same letter, asked whether there is a bona fide defence, or alternatively, an offer for an amicable settlement.
It was then that the Le Roux couple met with Agribank.
In his founding affidavit submitted on 2 August, George told the court they have a bona fide defence and further admitted to having “failed timeously to pay some of the instalments due”.
However, he said they had held a meeting with the CEO, chief financial officer and the head of specialised financing of the bank on 21 June, some three months after the initial summons was issued against him and his wife.
“I requested agreement on a temporary arrangement of the instalments payable and a withdrawal or stay of the action in the meantime.”
According to Le Roux, an agreement was in fact signed whereby they would make monthly payments of N$20 000 starting end of June and would settle all the arrears by 29 March next year with money generated from a subdivision and development project on the farm and the sale of those share blocks.
That document forms part of the papers filed by Le Roux. Proof of payments made at the end of June and July are also included.
He told the court the fact that Agribank had persisted in its action reflects a lack of bona fides, adding the application should be dismissed in light of the agreement signed. He also said they do not agree with the sum claimed, adding they would engage an accountant to recalculate the amount owed to Agribank.
Le Roux also made mention of email correspondence, also included in his papers. In this correspondence, the bank's chief financial officer Alfred Simasiku said the action was not to be cancelled, as Le Roux had written, but rather would be 'on hold' and furthermore, the agreement signed between the Le Roux couple and the bank would be sent to their legal department once drafted.
According to correspondence between the bank and the Le Roux couple's counsel, Naudé, they had been blacklisted, while Agribank's “claims are not due, owing or payable”.
“And what bothers our clients the most is that they were unlawfully blacklisted, apparently by [the bank] and that [the bank] refuses to withdraw the blacklisting.
“This unfortunate state of affairs is to the prejudice of our clients. Our clients are also consequently prejudiced in the raising of funds or capital for the development contemplated on the property while the blacklisting remains,” Naudé wrote on 29 June.
The matter seems to have stalled again with some relief for the Le Roux couple. Yesterday, before Judge Boas Usiku, the parties agreed that Agribank would withdraw its application for a summary judgement and it was given a month to decide further, if any, action.
YANNA SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article