Otavi residents lose valuation battleLand prices increase by up to 700% Residents in the northern town of Otavi are at the end of their tether over the approval of what they deem to be a valuation roll fraught with errors.
![]()
Otavi residents have been dealt a severe blow when a valuations court this week approved the town council's heavily criticised 2016 – 2020 general valuation roll which will see property prices rise by up to 1 200% on some farmland and from between 500% and 700% in town, according to residents.
Residents say the valuation roll is filled with inconsistencies and errors.
At this week's valuation hearing, these inconsistencies in the valuation of properties were raised by lawyer Maronel du Plessis, acting on behalf of 20 of the 30 objectors.
“Our biggest concern was that the roll was fraught with mistakes. Some could be explained, others not. For example, there are farms within the boundary of Otavi valued at N$200 per hectare (1 841 hectare farm), and others at N$5 700 per hectare (30 hectare plots).”
The differences in the farmland values are up to 2 750%.
She said when this issue was raised and the valuation board informed there were inconsistencies in the valuation of these properties they were told “that we had no evidence to prove otherwise”.
One example is that a 9 803-hectare farm was given a land value of N$410 per hectare, while a nearby lodge situated on 3 195 hectares, was valued at N$751 per hectare.
“But smaller plots of 30 hectares are valued at N$5 700 per hectare,” a resident said.
“This does not make any sense, and is not rational,” a resident, who declined to be named, said.
Independent valuation consultants from Windhoek, on behalf of some objectors, also calculated that the correct value of an unused school building in town, estimated to be between 70 and 80 years old, is N$590 000 for the 176-square metre building.
The town council's assessment, however, stipulated that the building is valued at N$14 204 per square metre, resulting in a total value of N$2.5 million according to residents.
“None of our submissions were accepted. I attempted to bring up issues, but the court rejected this. The magistrate, Joseph Shikongo, indicated that I could merely raise these issues from the bar. The typed heads of arguments were also not accepted because he indicated they were not served on the town council of Otavi,” Du Plessis said.
She explained that at the previous hearing in March, Shikongo accepted their submissions “but on this occasion, they were not even heard or considered.”
Many of the town's residents also claimed they had not been aware of the hearing, and could not prepare in time to submit objections. Attempts to allow them to testify at the court this week, were declined.
Moreover, independent valuations obtained by some of the town's residents were mostly dismissed.
In one case, the court said it would not consider a reduced valuation “unless we had some sort of valuation to substantiate the amount we are asking it to reduce the valuation to,” Du Plessis said.
But when this was done and an independent valuation was presented “they rejected it because it was not lodged together with the objection of the specific owner”.
Still later, the valuation that was lodged together with an objection was also rejected “because according to the assessor on the valuation board, Eneas Mtombeni, the valuator did not use the correct method to determine the value.”
Du Plessis said the valuation did in fact comply with the relevant laws but factors such as inflation, development of the town, willing buyer and seller, and other issues considered by the independent valuator, were not accepted by the board.
“Still later, they also rejected other objections and indicated they would only have considered valuations if our valuer was present to give evidence as to how he arrived at the amount.”
She said “none of our evidence was considered, yet pencil filled-in inspection cards, completed by an assistant of the valuer, Benjamin Shigwedha, director of Beniz Property Consulting who was not present during those assessments, were accepted.”
She said where errors in the valuation report were identified, the “court encouraged us to find a middle way for the valuation and if we did not agree or consent, with valid reason, they rejected our objection and upheld the valuations of the valuer.”
Attempts to obtain comment from the Otavi Town council were unsuccessful.
JANA-MARI SMITH