those various items. In the defendant’s plea it was specifically denied that the items were the property of the plaintiff. It was furthermore denied that annexure “A” was correct. Both the plaintiff’s ownership as well as the defendant’s possession of items listed in annexure “A” were thus placed in issue. These denials attracted no onus upon the defendant. It was thus incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish both his ownership of the items and that the items listed in annexure “A” were in possession of the Namibian police. In the course of the trial, the defendant had admitted possession of items which were entered in the Pol 7 register, exhibit “S” at the trial. It was common cause that the Namibian police had seized those items at the plaintiff’s plantation. But the defendant specifically put in issue that the items set out in annexure “A” reflected those seized by the Namibian police. In the plaintiff’s evidence, he could merely state that when he had returned to the plantation, he had noticed that certain items were missing and stated that the missing items were those contained in annexure “A”. He was not however present when items were seized. It was also common cause that several of the items listed in annexure “A” were not in possession of the defendant. Given the vindicatory nature of the claim, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the return or to the value of items not set out in the Pol 7 form, being thus unable to establish the defendant’s possession of those items unless he could establish that the police had been in possession of such items and thus claim their value. This is quite apart from the difficulty the plaintiff would face in respect of establishing ownership of those items. At best for the plaintiff, in the event of the entries in the Pol 7 register being incomplete, Mr Haufiku in his evidence stated that the following items were recovered from the plaintiff’s side of the plantation: Lister pumping machine, serial No. R352; John Deere tractor engine, serial No. 282898 CD; Trailer, serial No. 17401/1970;
10x90 mm aluminium irrigation pipes; 66x75 mm aluminium irrigation pipes 2x centrifugal pumps, serial No. VEG 106 and W.A. 3420; 6 disc plough, serial number. 7-1180; 10 disc harrow, serial number. 92-102; 1x suction valve with pipe; 31 fertiliser bags. Of these items it was common cause that the trailer and the six disc plough were property of the Mahenene Research Station and thus of the Government. As I understood the evidence, the ten disc harrow referred to also fell within this category, as was also accepted by the plaintiff. As far as the other items are concerned, the plaintiff did not in my view establish ownership of the John Deere tractor engine. On the contrary, it would seem that this engine was also government property and had been taken from the tractor at the Mahenene (Government) Research Station and was identified as such by Mr Alfred on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff also acknowledged that he did not own a tractor and said that the engine was built from parts acquired over several years but could not provide any proof or details concerning the purchase of any such part. As far as the Lister pump is concerned, it would seem that this item was the property of the research station and that the plaintiff would likewise not establish his ownership thereof. As for the two centrifugal pumps, the plaintiff’s evidence concerning them was confusing. He could not provide proof of ownership. On the other hand, there was evidence that these belonged to Namwater. There remains the two different sizes of irrigation pipes and the bags of fertiliser. The evidence before me was that the fertiliser bags had insignia upon them which would indicate that they form part of some exchange between the government and an external aid giver. While the plaintiff stated that he had cquired the fertiliser in the normal course, he did not explain how he came into possession of those items with the insignia on them even though he was not