By Staff Reporter

Copyright web

Staff Reporter

ECO Fuel Investment CC, a company co-owned by Namcor corruption accused Austin Elindi and Victor Malima, who is currently on the run, has been ordered to pay a debt of N$ 5.46 million it owes Engen Namibia Pty Ltd, after failing to have the High Court set aside a previous summary judgment which compelled it to pay the said amount.

While over 10 of his co-accused have been arrested in the Namcor fraud and corruption case, which emanates from credit fraud and the sale of phantom assets that cost the state petroleum entity losses of over N$ 400 million, Malima remains an elusive figure, with authorities believing that he is hiding in Angola.

Eco Fuel is linked to receiving a total of the illicit money siphoned out of Namcor in the amount of N$ 1.5 million, debited from the account of Eco Trading CC.

This money was withdrawn in cash in two parts immediately after it was received. This was in July 2022—the first N$700,000 and then N$800,000. Connie van Wyk, another accused, is said to have withdrawn the said amount.

The company argued that it was not given due notice with regard to the court action Engen Namibia had instituted against it, as Engen allegedly delivered the combined summons at an outdated address in Werner List Street, Buffalo Signs, despite having notified Engen that the company’s new address is on Julius Nyerere Street.

High Court Judge Orben Sibeya explained that Namcor instituted action proceedings against Eco Fuel Investment CC for payment of the amount of N$5,463,628.54. The said amount was in respect of fuel sold and delivered to Eco Fuel for the period of July and August 2021.

“It is imperative to note that the applicant was served in terms of the incorrect rule; however, this does not take away the fact that the address upon which the applicant was served remains the right and designated address. Although annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the particulars of claim do not provide a clause for the parties to stipulate in writing any change of address relating to the applicant, it is the duty of the party that changes the address to inform the other party in writing of such changes. The applicant did not provide this court any proof of change of address and notification of same to the respondent in writing,” Sibeya said.

He thus concluded that Eco Fuel’s defence that it changed its address and that Namcor was aware of such changes does not hold water, because no proof that the respondent was informed about such changes in address was brought before court.

“I am further of the view that the combined summons were served at the chosen address, as such service was properly effected. The applicant’s explanation for the default is therefore not reasonable. I must also mention that, apart from the qualm of the alleged improper service, the applicant was silent on any defence to the merits of the monetary claim. Resultantly, the application for rescission of judgment falls to be dismissed,” Sibeya concluded.

ANOTHER BITES THE DUST: File photo for illustrative purposes only.