By Staff Reporter
Cornelius Petrus Willemse is challenging the government over its decision to stop the purchase of an agricultural property he had agreed to buy for more than N$3 million.
In his latest court document, signed on 17 August 2026, Willemse responds to the government’s version of events and maintains that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Land Reform acted wrongly when she stopped the transaction on 18 May 2026.
The dispute concerns a piece of agricultural land that Willemse sought to purchase through the government’s land acquisition process.
Willemse says he made an offer of N$1,551.99 per hectare for the property, bringing the total purchase price to N$3,000,729.21. According to him, the Minister accepted his offer on 7 January 2026.
Following the acceptance, Willemse says the sale moved forward and was handed over for the necessary transfer process.
However, the transaction later came to a halt after concerns were raised about a possible court order affecting the property.
Willemse’s latest court document questions the information the government relied on when making its decision.
He says the government’s own records show that the Anti-Corruption Commission had informed the Ministry as early as 14 November 2025 that an application relating to the property had been lodged.
However, another communi cation from the Anti-Corruption Commission dated 27 January 2026 allegedly stated that the Asset Forfeiture Unit was still preparing court papers for such an application.
Willemse says the difference between the two pieces of information was never properly explained to him. He also says he was not given an opportunity to respond before the government stopped the transaction.
Another point of disagreement is whether the government was dealing with an accepted offer or a “counter-offer” Willemse rejects the government’s description of the transaction as a counter-offer.
He says his original statutory offer had already been accepted by the Minister on 7 January 2026 and that the transaction had subsequently moved forward to the transfer stage.
He argues that the government could not simply withdraw the transaction without properly dealing with the consequences of the earlier acceptance.
The dispute was further complicated by a preservation order granted by the High Court on 12 June 2026 concerning the
property.
Willemse says he accepts and respects that order.
However, he argues that the order came after the Minister’s 18 May decision and should not be used to justify a decision that he says was already wrong when it was made.
The case also involves allegations contained in separate proceedings concerning the property and the source of funds allegedly used to acquire it.
Willemse says he does not intend to deal with those allegations in this case, arguing that they should be dealt with separately.
His main argument is that the Minister should have properly checked the information available to her before stopping the transaction and should have given him an opportunity to respond.
He also argues that government officials are required to treat people fairly and to follow the law when making administrative decisions.
Willemse is asking the High Court to overturn the Minister’s 18 May 2026 decision.
The latest replying affidavit, signed on 17 August, is the most recent document in the matter and sets out Willemse’s response to the government’s answering affidavit of 21 July 2026.
At the centre of the dispute is whether the government was justified in stopping a land transaction after Willemse’s offer had already been accepted, and whether the information used to make that decision was properly established at the time.
