Rossmund homeowner defies municipality of Swakopmund’s decision he transgressed building rules of the “so-called Golf Estate” “

In hindsight, had I known then what I know now, I would never have invested a single cent at Rössmund.” This was said this week by one of the residents of this upper class suburb after the Swakopmund Town Council recently took a bold decision in the ongoing so called Rössmund Golf Estate saga to demolish structures at his house that was not approved by the Rossmund Golf Estate Home Owners Association (RGEHOA).

During the most recent monthly meeting, the Swakopmund Town Council gave the General Manager: Engineering Services authorisation to have certain unapproved structures on erf 58 at the Rössmund Golf Estate demolished – and if necessary to obtain a court interdict to do so (namib times reported).
Namib times spoke to the owner of the property this week, who has no intention of demolishing any structures. According to the owner of the property (Erf 58), he bought the house close to nine years ago. After staying at Rössmund for a few years he decided to construct an additional garage, as well as a boundary wall around his property. “The wall keeps out springbuck destroying my garden. It also serves as a windbreaker,” he explained.
The plans for the additional structures were drawn up by an architect and were in-line with the aesthetics of the so called Rössmund Golf Estate. He handed the plans in at the Rössmund Golf Estate Home Owners Association (RGEHOA) for approval. The Association refused to approve the plans.
Besides paying monthly rates and taxes, Rössmund residents also have to pay monthly levies for the so called golf estate, of which a portion goes towards the upkeep of the golf course. This particular owner however, stopped paying these monthly levies in 2012, after it was established that Rössmund is not a Golf Estate, but only an ordinary suburb of Swakopmund. He was also protesting against a portion of the levies paid for the upkeep of the golf course, as the golf course is an entity privately owned by the Rossmund Golf Course cc.
As a result of the refusal to pay the levies, HOA refused to approve his building plans and would only do so if he settles the outstanding levies.
The owner thereafter submitted the plans to the municipality of Swakopmund for approval. The municipality also did not approve the plans stating that the HOA needs to approve them first. “After I exhausted all avenues to sort out the issue and did not get any feedback, we decided to build the structures,” said the owner. The structures consist of the boundary wall as well as an additional garage – an investment worth more than N$600 000.
The number of “rebel” home owners grew who refuse to pay levies, because they dispute the existence of this so-called golf estate and the fact that the privately-owned golf course is maintained with funds from residents of the Rossmund suburb. The Rossmund Golf Estate Homeowners Association subsequently decided to approach the Swakopmund magistrate’s court to recover the levies in arrears from homeowners.
Despite the fact that several homeowners were/and still are in arrears, only one resident was sued. It was at this juncture a discovery was made that the Rossmund Golf Estate Homeowners Association was established with a non-existent section 21 company registration number. Subsequently this incorrect company registration number was utilised to register notarial bonds of imposition against title deeds at Rossmund, which would compel home owners to abide by the estate’s rules and to pay levies. By implication these notarial bonds are non-binding and need to be rectified.
The Homeowners Association did register the correct company registration number in 2006, but a rectification is required to replace the non-existent number for the correct one. An application was launched in the Swakopmund magistrates court to do so, but the magistrate ruled only the High Court of Namibia has the jurisdiction to hear such an application for rectification.
This resulted in the Homeowners Association’s case to recover levies in arrears delayed indefinitely. Also, as the matter is dragging out, the RGEHOA has not issued certificates (that the plans adhere to the aesthetics rules of the HOA) to all applicants, inclusive of the owners of Erf 58.
“So far the court has not ruled that either party was wrong and the issue (dispute) is still hanging in the air. We were under the impression we followed all the right channels and when we did not get any feedback from anywhere, we decided to go ahead with the building of the structures,” the owner concluded.