Namport to return shipping containers, court orders
Tradeport’s urgent application succeeds
The court has ordered that Tradeport may return to a portion of the port of Lüderitz after a successful court application.
The High Court has ordered the Namibian Port Authority (Namport) to return about 80 shipping containers it removed from a site at the port of Lüderitz.
The containers belong to Tradeport Namibia, which filed an urgent application at the Windhoek High Court and succeeded in proving a case of spoliation.
Spoliation is a legal remedy that can be used to stop the illegal deprivation of possession of, for example, property, when a party can prove that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.
Judge Thomas Masuku delivered a verdict on Friday and ordered that the portion of the port which was occupied by Tradeport be returned to its possession and that the removed shipping containers be returned.
Background
On 16 January, Namport removed around 80 shipping containers from a site at the port that Tradeport claims it rented from Namport on the basis of a verbal rental agreement since 2019.
Namport denied that there is a lease agreement in place, and said the premises are part of common facilities which are apparently occupied by several entities. It further argued that Tradeport was aware at all times that the occupation of the premises was only a temporary arrangement.
Masuku found in his judgment that the existence of an alleged verbal rental agreement was not relevant to the present application, as it was the actual possession that was in question and not the right to possession.
"Whether [Tradeport] was the owner of the portion of the land where its property was held, or whether there was a verbal lease agreement or not, is irrelevant," his verdict read.
Unlawfully deprived
Namport informed Tradeport in November 2023 that it had to remove the shipping containers from the premises to make room for a warehouse for a new operator.
Tradeport refused, and on 16 January, Namport apparently began to remove the containers without the company’s permission.
"I am of the opinion that the question to be determined is whether [Tradeport] was unlawfully deprived of the property in question," Masuku said in his ruling.
Namport argued in its court documents that Tradeport agreed to the relocation of the containers on 16 January because it did not oppose, adding that some of Tradeport’s employees helped to remove the containers.
Masuku dismissed this defence and pointed out in his judgment that Tradeport was clear from the beginning about its intention to remain in possession of the property.
In its urgent application, Tradeport argued that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the relevant portion at the port. According to Masuku's ruling, Namport did not dispute this fact in its court documents.
“It is clear from the facts before the court that [Tradeport] exercised some right and control in relation to the property. I am of the opinion that [Tradeport] has met the requirements for the granting of a spoliation order,” the judge said.
Namport indicated that it will attempt to obtain an eviction order.
– [email protected]
The containers belong to Tradeport Namibia, which filed an urgent application at the Windhoek High Court and succeeded in proving a case of spoliation.
Spoliation is a legal remedy that can be used to stop the illegal deprivation of possession of, for example, property, when a party can prove that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.
Judge Thomas Masuku delivered a verdict on Friday and ordered that the portion of the port which was occupied by Tradeport be returned to its possession and that the removed shipping containers be returned.
Background
On 16 January, Namport removed around 80 shipping containers from a site at the port that Tradeport claims it rented from Namport on the basis of a verbal rental agreement since 2019.
Namport denied that there is a lease agreement in place, and said the premises are part of common facilities which are apparently occupied by several entities. It further argued that Tradeport was aware at all times that the occupation of the premises was only a temporary arrangement.
Masuku found in his judgment that the existence of an alleged verbal rental agreement was not relevant to the present application, as it was the actual possession that was in question and not the right to possession.
"Whether [Tradeport] was the owner of the portion of the land where its property was held, or whether there was a verbal lease agreement or not, is irrelevant," his verdict read.
Unlawfully deprived
Namport informed Tradeport in November 2023 that it had to remove the shipping containers from the premises to make room for a warehouse for a new operator.
Tradeport refused, and on 16 January, Namport apparently began to remove the containers without the company’s permission.
"I am of the opinion that the question to be determined is whether [Tradeport] was unlawfully deprived of the property in question," Masuku said in his ruling.
Namport argued in its court documents that Tradeport agreed to the relocation of the containers on 16 January because it did not oppose, adding that some of Tradeport’s employees helped to remove the containers.
Masuku dismissed this defence and pointed out in his judgment that Tradeport was clear from the beginning about its intention to remain in possession of the property.
In its urgent application, Tradeport argued that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the relevant portion at the port. According to Masuku's ruling, Namport did not dispute this fact in its court documents.
“It is clear from the facts before the court that [Tradeport] exercised some right and control in relation to the property. I am of the opinion that [Tradeport] has met the requirements for the granting of a spoliation order,” the judge said.
Namport indicated that it will attempt to obtain an eviction order.
– [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article