Sunday, July 3, 2022

Witness links Collins Newman & Co to Nchindo controversial land

Collins Newman & Company attorney Lawrence Khupe featured prominently when President of the ad hoc Land Tribunal, Boitumelo Chuma gave evidence in the ongoing Nchindo criminal case on Monday.

This comes a few days after the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) subpoena Collins Newman & Company Senior partner Parks Tafa together with Lawrence Khupe to become state witnesses.

It emerged during Chuma’s evidence that Khupe signed and certified all documents that Nchindo submitted to government when applying for plot 55720.

Khupe is part of the defense team that represents Nchindo, his son Garvas and Joe Matome in the criminal case.

Chuma told the court that all the documents that Nchindo furnished to her department for the plot title deed to be prepared were signed and certified by Lawrence Khupe.

“The resolution of the board of directors, the certificate of incorporation, Nchindo’s identity document, and the memorandum and articles of association were all signed and certified by Lawrence Khupe” she said.

In November 2001, the land tribunal received instructions to write Nchindo a letter offering him plot 55720 for a 50 year fixed plot state grant. In return, he was to pay government P4 million for the land.

Before the land transfer could be completed Nchindo was also required to provide proof of TDC’s shareholding, a resolution made by the company directors and a certificate of incorporation.
He tendered a resolution of the board of directors and an affidavit of shareholding in February 2002. A title deed number 2446/2002 was then issued in favor of TDC.

However, a major discrepancy emerged in court. The resolution of the board of directors, dated 23 October 2001, preceded the date at which Nchindo was offered the plot and the date on which the TDC directors were appointed, 19 February 2002.

Chuma said that her department did not notice the discrepancy, and would have returned the documents for correction if they had realized that the date of the resolution predated the date of the directors’ appointment.

However Advocate Webster put it to her that the discrepancy in the date was just a typing error by the conveyances, Collins Newman and Co.


Read this week's paper