also sues for loss of profit and the return of money that was in his motor vehicle when the police impounded it in actions associated with the arrest and detention mentioned earlier. Background [4] The plaintiff is a Namibian adult male resident of Erf. 688 Zambezi Street, Wanaheda, Katutura, Windhoek in this Republic. It is common cause that in or about 2014, he ran a business, which was a house of merriment, namely, selling liquor and related products in what has become colloquially known in this part of the world as a ‘shebeen’. I will use the said term interchangeably with the word ‘bar’ in reference to the plaintiff’s business. He sued the defendant, being the Minister of Safety and Security, in respect of three separate claims, namely, payment of N$ 300 000 for alleged unlawful arrest and assaults by the charges of the defendant, being police officers based at the Serious Crimes Unit in Windhoek; payment of N$ 70 000, being in respect of loss of profit in his aforesaid business and lastly, payment of N$ 27 000, which was an amount of money that was in his vehicle during an alleged wrongful impoundment of his vehicle by the police. Admission of liability [5] Happily, and to their credit, the defendants admitted liability to the plaintiff for the claims and what the court was in that event called upon to determine, was the issue of quantum in relation to the plaintiff’s three claims stated above. Common cause facts [6] A cursory assessment of the case brings one to the conclusion that most of the facts giving rise to the claim are common cause and are not the subject serious disputation, if any. It may ultimately be in applying the relevant law to the common cause facts that may constitute the slippery slope. I intend, in order to bring the reader up to
[69] Ms. David, in my view, was a very good witness and who was not in any way dislodged or unhinged by the cross-examination. Her evidence was adduced and I cannot for any reason disbelieve her, neither did Mr. Ngula, in fairness to him, contend otherwise, nor could he legitimately do so. [70] What cannot be wished away is that the plaintiff did lose business and eventually closed the business as a result of the unlawful actions of the defendants’ charges in two ways, viz taking the money for stock and secondly, by unlawfully impounding the plaintiff’s vehicle. It was his evidence that these twin factors rendered him unable to continue doing the business because he did not have the money to hire alternative transport and also his power to buy sufficient stock was impaired and eventually hamstrung. This cannot be doubted on the evidence. [71] Doing the best I can in the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the evidence of Ms. David can be relied on for establishing what would be fair to award to the plaintiff in the circumstances. I am of the view that due to the market forces and the unpredictable nature of the business, an award between the best and worst days would be a fair amount to grant in the circumstances. As earlier stated, on good days, the best amount was N$ 6000 and on bad days, it was N$ 1500. An amount of N$ 3 000 per day would, in my considered opinion be condign, in the absence of documentary evidence as previously stated. [72] In the premises, I am of the considered view that it was established in evidence and not denied that the vehicle was impounded for a period of 30 weeks. For this reason, I am of the view that calculation of the collections made at N$ 3 000 per week would
[76] I am also of the view that persons who are in the employ of the Government must from now on know that if they act in a manner that is despicable and contrary to what they were employed to do, the message will be sent home that officers who behave in such a fashion will have to pay a personal price and will not have the public purse pay a reward for their indiscretions. In view of the order I will issue against the said officers, it important to note that the question of costs, to be addressed below, is without prejudice to the Inspector-General acting in terms of Regulation 27 of the Police Act, as he may deem fit. The application of Regulation 27 should also be seriously considered by the in relation to the claim for N$ 27 000 as this money remains unaccounted for and the finding that the officers appropriated it is unmistakable. Order [77] In the premises, I issue the following order in favour of the plaintiff: – CLAIM 1 – payment of the amount of N$ 300 000; CLAIM 2 – payment of the amount of N$ 27 000; CLAIM 3 – payment of the amount of N$ 90 000; Interest on the aforesaid amounts at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of judgment to the date of final payment; and Messrs. Freddie Nghilinganye and Sackey Kokule be and are hereby called upon to show cause in person or by legal representatives of their own choice and at their own cost, on or before 27 September 2017, why: (a) Costs of suit in this matter should not be ordered on the scale between attorney and client; (b) Both Mr. Nghilinganye and Kokule should personally not pay such costs, jointly and severally, the one paying and the other being absolved.