Residents of the Monopoly Houses development in Mondesa Extension 12 say their homes began cracking within months of construction, raising concerns about building quality, oversight, and accountability.
One of the affected homeowners, the owner of Erf 4538, has formally informed the Swakopmund Municipality about serious structural concerns allegedly affecting several houses constructed around 2021 and 2022 under the Monopoly Houses project.
According to the complaint, cracks started appearing within a year after occupation and progressively worsened over time. Residents claim the builder initially dismissed the defects as ordinary “settlement cracks”, despite the damage allegedly continuing to spread. The homeowner further alleges that an independent engineering assessment identified what the report described as serious structural defects possibly linked to foundation problems. Namib Times has seen the engineering report. Residents claim multiple houses within the same development show similar cracking patterns, raising fears that the problem may not be isolated to a single property.
According to the complaint, the developer allegedly attributed the damage to alterations made by homeowners, including the construction of additional dwellings. However, residents argue that similar defects have appeared in houses where no alterations or extensions were made. Concerns have also been raised over contractual provisions signed by homeowners at the time of purchase. Clause 6.5.2 of the construction agreement states: “The contractor undertakes to rectify major structural defects in the buildings caused by non-compliance with reasonable and acceptable, in the building industry, structural standards and which become apparent within 1 (one) year from the completion Date and of which the contractor is notified in writing within the aforesaid period.” Clause 6.7 further states: “Should the client fail to give the said notice timeously and within the period stipulated, it shall be regarded that the building has been built and completed in accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the Design Manual to the satisfaction of the client and the client shall be deemed to have accepted the building in good order and condition and the contractor shall be discharged from its obligations hereunder with no further liability towards the client and the client shall have no further claim whatsoever against the contractor.” Residents argue that these clauses effectively shift responsibility away from the developer after one year, even in cases where serious structural defects only become fully apparent later. In a response to questions from Namib Times, the Swakopmund Municipality’s spokesperson, Linda Mupupa, confirmed that the municipality is aware of at least one formal complaint regarding structural cracks in the development. Mupupa said the complaint was formally reported around May or June 2024. She stated that the development was undertaken by a private developer who appointed its own contractors and subcontractors. “The Municipality did not design, supervise, construct, appoint contractors, or certify the structural works,” Mupupa said. Mupupa confirmed that building plans and permits were approved and that standard inspections were conducted during key construction stages, including foundations, flooring, wall construction, roofing, and final completion inspections.
The municipality further stated that no concerns were formally raised during inspections conducted during construction. She also said the area is generally regarded as stable and rocky, adding that the municipality is “not aware of any significant geological or soil instability concerns affecting the area.” However, residents allege the land may not have been properly assessed before development and question whether inspections were sufficiently thorough. The municipality maintained that responsibility for geotechnical and structural assessments rested with the appointed architects and engineers involved in the private development. Mupupa said no penalties have been issued against the developer or contractor because the development had approved plans and valid permits. Despite the complaints, construction in the development reportedly continues. “The contractor and developer continue to operate lawfully. The Municipality cannot restrict a contractor or developer from conducting business unless directed through due legal or judicial processes,” Mupupa stated. For affected homeowners, the situation has become increasingly difficult as many continue paying mortgages on properties they believe may have serious structural defects.
Residents say banks remain involved through long-term home loans, leaving families financially exposed while disputes over accountability continue. The municipality advised residents to engage independent structural engineers, insurers, legal representatives, or the courts where necessary. Attempts to obtain comment from the developer and construction company were unsuccessful by the time of publication, despite questions being sent to both parties.
By Sharlien Tjambari
