a word or two (or three...) on the antics of neighbours...

10 March 2009
The executive officers,
**** Investment Company
Plot 4*,
P.O. Box **
Windhoek, Namibia

*****, my bokkie,

You caught me on a really bad hair day today, giving me considerable cause to reflect on the etymology and value of the word “neighbour” and to wax biblical on the path of the righteous man, regrettably beset on some sides by the iniquities of apparently selfish and tyrannical men such as yourself.

While I could have started this particular reaction to your social misdemeanours with the locally popular “ek gaan jou moer” more befitting social misfits of your ilk, I've decided to approach this in a more benevolent manner provided by the excellent (and potentially very public) media vehicle called the *internet* – a really cool populist crowd-puller for the attention sought by neighing *boors* such as yourself. Or should that be “bores”?

I take umbrage at the manner in which you have boorishly attempted to take ownership of the law, neighing your belligerent dominion over common law access privileges and the common boundary fence between your investment company's property and that of my partner.

I find your despairing lack of manners an unwelcome intrusion of my privacy, given your failure to seek consent from my partner to introduce an access gate to our property on our common boundary fence. While the local competent authority's bylaws are *regrettably* lacking in any clarity on non-consensual embellishments of common property (i.e., our common boundary fence), I shall remind you that your use of this particular gate to trespass on our property through our common boundary fence may be challenged by a much longer standing, and highly relevant, common law framework; trespassers on our private property will, most certainly, be prosecuted. The signage is perhaps more invasive, given my determined stance, tempered as it is by (out)rage, to violate anyone foolish enough to encroach on my partner's private property!

I believe your failure to seek consent to remove (steal, vandalize, damage???) my partner's original common boundary fence and replace it with a life-threatening 2-meter high environmental abomination, is a travesty of common law. Not only does this abomination scar the skyline of an otherwise pristine natural feature of our landscape, it also effectively blocks a historical pathway for wildlife in the area.

The increasingly rare wildlife is now forced to seek alternative crossings on either side of your abomination, increasing their risk of persecution by trigger-happy yahoos in your neighbourhood, and snares set by marginalised meat-hungry employees, day-labourers, builders and other itinerants in your neighbourhood. Indeed, it is probably NOT coincidental that since your company has had the temerity to encourage trespass by its employees on our private property, we have seen a marked increase in the number of snares on wildlife pathways and common boundary fences of our private property and your neighbourhood.

I find your failure to seek consent from my partner, and clearly relevant advice from professionals, on the positioning of life-threatening (2 meter high!) electric fencing which encroaches on our side of the common boundary fence a travesty of common, municipal and public law and common sense; indeed, it is a travesty of my sensibilities to be reminded, once again, of investment companies who entrust decision-making processes to individuals with clearly delimited intellectual boundaries which translate into delusions of adequacy.

Finally, I find your apparent allegations of damage to property against us a comedy of your errors. I would think it very foolish to insinuate damage by neighbouring landowners before weighing such potentially defamatory allegations against the local perception (and related actions) your company's electric fence may have effected on those impressed by the burgeoning symbols of your investment company's apparent financial successes (more than likely to include your own delusional self!), as so overtly protected (?) by your company's extensive and elaborate security system.

As any well-fed lawyer will likely tell you in the imminent future, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Accordingly, I reserve my rights to challenge any defamatory allegations made by you or other investment company representatives about my partner, her employees or myself.

Finally, I shall like to point out that should you not be agreeable to removing your electric fencing and gate from where they encroach and encourage illegal trespass on our private property with the utmost urgency, your non-action in these regards shall not affect our rights, which are reserved, and which we shall then, perforce, have to secure by other lawful means at our disposal.


Joris Komen

PS - lots of pictures to follow!

A new bad hair day tail!

The (Acting) CEO
Namibia Airports Company Limited
Windhoek, Namibia
pr@airports.com.na

Dear Sir, Madam

Your Airport management staff at Hosea Kutako International Airport caught me on a really bad hair day. Your MISLEADING signage at the long term parking facility, manned by junior Airport staff, refers.


Having returned from a trip abroad, and being away for ONE WEEK (SEVEN days from Sunday morning through Saturday evening), I was confronted by an Airports Company management instruction to junior staff manning the collection kiosk at the long-term parking area at Hosea Kutako Airport that this period of vehicle storage represented a period of SIX 'overnights', rather than a period of ONE WEEK, in calculating the long term parking fee for my vehicle.

Accordingly, the Namibia Airports Company (NAC) was determined to collect N$ 300 for SIX 'overnights', rather than N$ 120 for ONE WEEK. Confronted by this verbal instruction to junior staff, I take offence at the very misleading signage prominently posted at the entrance to this parking area, which leaves these unfortunate, disenfranchised, junior staff to be lambasted by more than several irate customers, disputing the interpretation of the word 'week' on the NAC signage! Indeed, it appears that such heated interactions happen frequently at this gate, directly related to the NAC's misleading signage.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, among several other paper-based and on-line dictionaries, consulted while trying to calm down since my heated dispute with your NAC management staff took place, defines the word 'week' as a period of seven DAYS. Not seven 'overnights'!

Based on telephonic exchange with your NAC management staff, it appears that they have unilaterally elected to redefine the word 'week' (a 'Company' week?) to be a week of seven 'overnights', and therefore EIGHT days by conventional reckoning.

To avoid unpleasant customer interactions in future, especially for your junior collection kiosk staff (who do not have internal company telephone access) , may I suggest that you urgently replace the presently misleading signage with something which unambiguously represents your determined position to charge your long-term parking customers N$ 50 for overnight storage over periods of one – six nights! I would go on to suggest that you then fix your signage to also reflect appropriately corrected charges for overnight storage periods of seven to 13 nights, periods of 14 nights and longer, and periods of 30 nights and longer.

Airports are stressful, dehumanising environments at the best of times; your thoughtful attention to detail could go a long way to easing this particular burden of stress for customers and staff alike.

Joris Komen
tatejoris@fastmail.fm