IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 34502/2010 In the matter between: GRAND VALLEY ESTATES (PTY) LTD 48" PLAINTIFF AND 11 OTHERS 2"° TO 12™ PLAINTIFFS and MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY 48" DEFENDANT AND 24 OTHERS 28° TO 25™ DEFENDANTS WITNESS STATEMENT |, the undersigned, RICHARD SPOOR hereby declare under oath as follows in the above matter: INTRODUCTION: 1 | am an adult male attorney practicing as such at The Zanzibar Building No. 9, Bagdad Centre, White River. 2. | ama public interest lawyer who has extensive experience in the field of land reform and restitution, | have acted primarily for land claimants. Page 1 of 2310. 11. 12. | am the former attorney of the plaintiffs and their associated companies (“my clients”), between 1999 to 2008 Grand Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd is the first plaintiff, Edge to Edge 17 (Pty) Lid is the second plaintiff and Motifprops 1021 CC is the fourth plaintif. | have been advised that the defendants have admitted that the above plaintiffs owned the properties which are listed in the Schedule of Fixed Properties, annexed to the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim. The aforesaid properties were part of a land assembly program that knitted together a contiguous tract of land in the Great nkomati River Valley in the Carolina District between the towns of Badplaas and Barberton. It forms part of the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountainlands in Barberton in the Umjindi district, which has now been declared a Unesco World Heritage site. I was a partner in the Nelspruit based firm of Ntuli Noble and Spoor Inc. The decline of agriculture in Badplaas, in particular the tobacco farming in the later eighties/nineties created the opportunity for the plaintiffs to acquire land rich in biodiversity, scientific merit, and cultural value for a Big 5 eco- tourism project. The plaintiffs retained my services between 1999 and 2008 to advise them on land claims and related issues but not commercial issues, a field in which I have little expertise. My approach to these matters is to engage all stakeholders constructively. This tract of land, previously known as Nkomazi Wildemess, is known today as Nkomazi Game Reserve. Page 2 of 2313. 14, 15. 16. 47. "D-200- 208 The land had been significantly degraded by human activities such as hunting, mining, and farming and required extensive programs to restore landscapes and restore and replace biodiversity. This demanded a multi-pronged programs to rehabilitate and restore the land to its original condition. The process was guided and supported by top experts such as Professor Wouter van Hoven who is a world renowned expert in the field and also by many other experts and stakeholders." Letter of support dated 24 Sept 2002 from University of McGILL. Letter of support dated 22 Jan 2002 from Stanford, Letter of support dated 7 May 2002 from CIGCES. Letter of support undated from University of Pretoria. Letter of support dated 26 Sept 2005 from University of Stellenbosch. Letter of support dated 7 Dec 1999 from University of Witwatersrand. Letter of support dated 6 February 2003 from EGRI. Letter of support dated 23 Aug 2002 from Goldfields. | participated in due diligences regarding the historical facts underlying the land claims and believe my opinion has been vindicated by all the experts in the case, including the defendants’ expert, Professor Delius. The restoration and rehabilitation of a derelict asbestos mines and dumps on the farm Sterkspruit, the removal of physical contours and derelict farm infrastructure and the re-introduction of endemic species of game. a Page 3 of 23 XN Letter of support dated 28 Sept 2002 from Department of Earth Sciences.18. 19. 20. 21. 22, The conservation efforts of the first plaintiff directly resulted in the re- introduction of many species of wildlife and to the restoration of the land’s original biodiversity and ecological integrity. The properties were game fenced with big five specifications approved by the first defendant, in order to form a substantial conservation area of approximately forty thousand hectares that linked into the Transfrontier and World Heritage initiatives. The Nkomazi Wilderness was declared a Nature Reserve on 10 of August 2001 in Provincial Gazette No. 750° (By virtue of Official Notice No. 18 of 2001). The area was declared a national and world heritage site by Unesco. | attended meetings with government officials and the fourth defendants, and their employees knew about the significance of the area and that the plaintiffs had invested considerable time and resources to establish the Nkomazi Reserve, as is apparent from the initial government support of the Project * D-209 Letter of support dated 25 April 2003 from the Mpumalanga Prov Gov. D-210 Letter of support dated 25 April 2007 from Umjindi Municipality. D-211 Letter of support undated from Albert Luthuli Municipality. THE LAND CLAIMS °B-91 “B-459 4D-209 - 211 Page 4 of 2323. 24, 25. 26. 27. | have knowledge, based on my experience of the Badplaas land claims and personally deposed of various affidavits in the Land Claims Court and various confirmatory affidavits in the High Court relating to the land claims and the impact it had on the plaintiffs. | was retained before my clients purchased most of the land owned by them and they asked me to advise them on the risk that land restitution claims posed to their project. The eleventh plaintiff provided me with a description of nine farms that had already been purchased and farms which still had to be acquired for the final area of the conservancy: 25.1 Theeboom 749 JT. 25.2 Boekenhoutrand 722 JT. 25.3 Stolzburg 710 JT. 25.4 Doyershoek 702 JT. 25.5 Belvue 711 JT. 25.6 Vergelegen 728 JT. 25.7 Sterkspruit 709 JT. 25.8 Vygeboom 619 JT. 25.9 Winkelhaak 723 JT. My preliminary investigation into the history of the title deeds showed that all of the properties were in private ownership as at 19 June 1913 to the extent therefore that there had been any dispossession, it was not the dispossession of ownership. | also sought to establish if there was a record of any forced removals from the properties and while | found that there had been in the Badplaas area none of them pertained to the plaintiffs’ properties. Page 5 of 2328. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34, 35. | also sought to establish the nature of the former owners’ occupation (which started as winter grazing for sheep but developed into cultivation farming by virtue of the abundance of water for irrigation. | advised my clients that, based on the same historical facts there could not be any valid land restitution claims based on dispossession of ownership, and that at best the claims were limited to occupation and limited land right uses. The above claims would not justify restitution of the physical land. I do not deny the possibility that valid land claims may have existed but they would have fallen short of a right to restitution of the properties. In my view the limited nature of the rights sought to be resituted do not amount to a right to claim ownership. Considering the integrated nature of the Reserve, an appropriate remedy if there was one, would be financial compensation, alternatively the provision of altemative land. In this regard | add that the state has acquired very substantial land that is available for this purpose. In my view such claims as they were could readily be resolved without imperiling the Reserve. My instructions, and my inclination, were to work with the fourth defendant to resolve these claims. On 4 November 1999, | sent a letter ° to the fourth defendant together with a copy of a map of Nkomazi (page 2) of the conservancy my clients were in the process of establishing. The purpose of the letter was to introduce the fourth defendant to the project and engage it. 5B.354 \ Page 6 of 23 NY36. 37. 38. 39. | wrote in black letters on the Map: “Proposed area of Nkomazi Wildemess”. In the letter | recorded: “A map of our client's property is annexed showing both his existing ownership and the proposed final area of the conservancy that is envisaged.” Using the information supplied about the project and the Map, on the 22 May 2004, the fourth defendant gazetted land claims over the exact boundaries of plaintiffs’ properties that were described in the Map. It is unlikely a coincidence that the land claims were gazetted on the boundaries of the above proposed area of the Nkomazi Wilderness that were provided in good faith to the fourth defendant. First Government Gazette 40. An. 42. On 7 March 2003, the fourth defendant, published a General Notice® Number 610 of 2003, under section 11 (1) of the Restitution of Land Act, 22 of 1994, The relevant claim number is KRP435. In this claim, the Nhlabathi community claimed the remaining extent and portions, 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the farm Vergelegen 728 JT on the borders of the farm Page 7 of 23,For ease of reference, | have colored in the portions of the farms gazetted in green ‘on the map of Nkomazi sent to the fourth defendant on 4 November 1999.” Second Government Gazette 44. On 21 May 2004, the fourth defendant published a second General N Number 827 of 2004, under the Act regarding claim numbers KRP 4134 and 9891. 45. More specific information of the claims are as follows: Claimant |IdentityNo | KRP | Entity Verification Kenneth Job | 6509235577083 | 4134] Mdumane Community | No Masina C.J. Nkosi 2102058078087 | 9891 | Self No ‘Swidi Abraham | 6508235577083 ‘Amangeamane Swazi | No Maseko Nation 46. The claims were gazetted against the following properties: 46.1. The remaining extent and portions 1, 2, 3 & 5 of the farm Winkelhaak 723 JT. 46.2 The remaining extent and portion 1 of the farm Languedoc 743 JT. 46.3 The remaining extent and portions 1 — 8 of the farm Sterkspruit 709 wT. 46.4. The farm Vygeboom 619 JT, portions 1 — 17. 46.5. The remaining extent and portion 1 of the farm Doyershoek 702 JT. 46.6 The farm Groenviei 701 JT XY 73.354 °B-31 \ Page 8 of 23 iY47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 46.7 Portions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the farm Belvue 741 JT 46.8 The remaining extent and portions 1 — 5 of the farm Boekenhoutrand 722 JT. 46.9 Nkomazi farm no 757 JT (A consolidation of farms 722, 729 and 710 JT) Of the above properties, sixth below were owned at the time by the plaintiffs: 47.1 Winkelhaak 723 JT, Portion 2 and 5 47.2 Sterkspruit 709 JT, the remainder of Portions 1 and 9 47.3 Doyershoek 702 JT the remaining extent. 47.4 Boekenhoutrand 722 JT 47.5 Nkomazi farm 757 JT 47.6 Bellvue 711 JT, Portion 2, Portion 3 and Portion 4 ‘As can be seen from the Map,” the gazetted properties matched the boundaries of the Nkomazi Wilderness. It therefore mirrors the map attached to my letter dated 4 November 1999. My clients’ initiatives to establish the Nkomazi Wilderniss corresponded with a substantial initiative on the part of the fourth defendant to acquire properties for the purpose of land restitution in the Badplaas district. In my opinion these acquisitions were not triggered by the land claimants themselves but by a corrupt scheme, spearheaded by Mr Pieter Visagie to acquire and on sell land to the fourth defendant for profit. This was manifest in the manner in which properties were acquired for re- sale to the fourth defendant by Mr Visagie, ostensibly representing Agri SA, (he entered into sale agreements with distressed property owners and sold them on a back to back basis at a substantial mark-up/to\the fourth °B-354 page 2 Page 9 of 23 \52. 53. 54, 55. 56. 87. °B.32 defendant) and the prices at which the properties were sold to the fourth defendant (prices were massively inflated by the valuers appointed by the sellers and/or the fourth defendant. To the best of my recall substantial sale commissions were paid to premier DD Mabuza's wife who was a Pam Golding estate agent. As | recall Visagie was also leasing back the properties he had sold to the fourth defendant at sub-economic value. My understanding is that he also sold the water rights attaching to the properties to the Komati Nickel Mine. The sale of these water rights prior to the sale to the fourth defendant rendered those properties worthless. On 25 May 2004, | wrote" to notify the seventeenth defendant, Nceba Nana that, ‘We are aware that valuations commissioned for sellers are hugely inflated in the Badplaas area.” The letter remained unanswered. As it appears to me the fourth defendant embarked on a process of consolidating a large number of claims of doubtful scope and validity in order to justify the purchases. The purchases of land that are relevant to these proceedings were resituted to the Ndwanda Community Trust (NCT) which is/was a loose and incoherent consolidation of land claims of diverse and doubtful merit. On 19 November 2015, Nacukaitobi AJ in the Land Claims Court (LCC 60/2012) set aside the above unlawful consolidation of the dubious and diverse land claims in favour of the NCT. Page 10 of 2358. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64, 65. “B33 In a letter" dated 18 June 2004 | advised the fourth defendant that my clients had noted the content of General Notice Number 827, the second government gazette of claims over the plaintiffs’ properties. | proposed that the plaintiffs needed to make an informed decision about the lawfulness of the land claims and did not want to scare away potential investors by becoming involved unlawful land claims. The letter served to inform the fourth defendant that my clients had no knowledge of the merits of the claims over Nkomazi Wildemess and would have difficulty in responding to them. My clients accordingly asked the fourth defendant to forward copies of the claim documents, as well as all supporting statements or reports filed. My letter of 18 June 2004 remained unanswered. At my clients request, the SA Council for Property Valuators appointed the late Derick Griffiths to review the land claim prices in Badplaas. | have known Derrick for many years. He is a former chairperson of the SA Institute of Valuers, and highly regarded and frequently employed by the fourth defendant both as an expert witness and a valuer. Griffiths needed the co-operation of the fourth defendant for his review. Instead, the seventeenth defendant (Nceba Nqana) wrote a letter’? dated 2 September 2004 to Griffiths on behalf of the fourth defendant, stating that he would only give the information if Griffiths fumished him with an undertaking from his client Daniel, that he is not challenging the validity of the claims and is willing to sell the properties. annexure “A” — D-262 Page 11 of 2366. On 4 September 2004, an article appeared in the City Press: SA's own land grab. The article" said that the fourth defendant had ignored my warning of the inflation of land prices. 67. The fourth defendant released a press statement™ on 6 September 2004 complaining about the article in the City Press but the news had broken that Pieter Visagie, a local farmer had been buying farms in Badplaas at attractive prices on behalf of the fourth defendant. 68. _ | have been informed that Paul O'Sullivan has testified that his investigations revealed that Visagie was the architect of the Badplaas land claim corruption, which evidence was not disputed. 69. I have no argument with O’Sullivan’s conclusions. 70. Emst and Young in their February 2005 forensic report later found in para 1.1.8 under Summary of Detailed Findings that while the land was transferred to land claimants, the beneficial use remained with Visagie, even after land restitution. ** 71. I sent a letter"® on 7 September 2004 to the fourth defendant to propose that a credible independent non governmental organization be involved to represent the claimants and that someone be appointed to facilitate discussions between the plaintiffs and claimants. 72. The letter remained unanswered. 38-390 ™D.260 *8A5-23 *B-34 Page 12 of 2373. 74, 75. 76. On 10 August 2005, | instructed Professor Templehoff from the University of the Northwest, to investigate the validity of the claims in a broader historical context. On 22 August 2006, he furnished me with a written report.” | recall that Professor Templehoff and | met with Nceba Nqana, the seventeenth defendant on 8 November 2005 in his capacity as the Mpumalanga Regional Land Claims Commissioner. The plaintiffs addressed a letter dated 10 November 2005" to the fourth defendant, commenting on the meeting of 8 November 2005. I wish to specifically emphasize the following comments in the letter regarding the above meeting: "As is clear from the above that there is a vast gulf between us in relation to our understanding of the process to be followed and that we have little confidence in the process currently being followed in the assessment of the merits of the claims filed” "Our client believes that it is entitled to be furnished with all the evidence that has been gathered and that will be used in support of the claimants’ claim, that it should be given the opportunity to consider the merits of the claims and to formulate a response." " Our client believes that mediation as contemplated in section 13 is crucial to the process of finding equitable, sustainable and mutually beneficial outcomes to the land claims process.” " Our client believes that if, notwithstanding disclosure of the evidence and mediation, no agreement can be reached on the merits of ths im or an 105-34 185.35 Page 13 of 23, NYacceptable accommodation the claim must be referred to the land claims court for adjudication." " Your position as we understand it and as it was communicated to us, is that you will decide whether or not the claim is good, without affording the landowner a hearing and without disclosing all the evidence upon which the claim is founded or affording the landowner of an opportunity to respond thereto." " We would like to suggest that, to rescue the process and retain the confidence of the parties, you consider appointing a mediator of as contemplated in section 13. A mediator would greatly improve the flow of information between the parties and give them a chance to find an accommodation between them’. 77. The fourth and seventeenth defendants did not take up my offer to refer the case to mediation, as is contemplated in Section 13 of the Act. 78. Nana (17" defendant) would later be suspended by the fourth defendant during September 2006 and resigned after | was asked to give evidence at his disciplinary hearing regarding the land claim corruption. 79. Ihave been advised that the State Attorney informed the plaintiffs on the eve of the Specal Trial in September 2021 that it cannot get hold of Nana and therefore no longer represented him. 80. The letter of 10 November 2005 remained unanswered. 81. | sent a letter"® dated 14 November 2005 to the national Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and the fourth and seventeenth defendants to complain about the obstructive and evasive conduct of the dffe *°B-437 Page 14 of 23 \\82. 83. 84, 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. | asked the Minister to intervene to ensure an objective and fair inquiry into the merits of the Badplaas land claims by the fourth and seventeenth defendants. The letter remained unanswered. A violent demonstration of alleged land claimants followed on December 2005.7 B-782 B-782 Photo raised hand B-783 B-783 photo crowd and umbrella '84 B-784 photo closer faces | sent a letter”* dated 30 November 2005 to the fourth defendant, recording what had happened. I sent another letter”? on 6 December 2005 to the fourth defendant to complain about a large group of people who had been transported in busses to gather at the Kung gate of the Reserve on 1 December 2005. | was informed the crowd was unruly threatening and aggressive. They wielded sticks, threw stones and some were carrying pliers, the clear message being that they wished to damage our clients’ game fences. The above letter remained unanswered. The plaintiffs on 16 January 2006 again met with the fourth and seventeenth defendants at Nkomazi Wilderness. °B.782, B-783, B-784 1B446 778.146 Page 15 of 23 NS90. 91. 92. 93. 94, 95. 96. Following this meeting | proposed in a letter’® dated 23 January 2006 that the fourth defendant appoints a mediator to facilitate a resolution of the land claims. The plaintiffs also informed the fourth defendant that delays in the finalization of the land claims, were extremely costly. The fourth and seventeenth defendants did not reply to the letter and no steps were taken to initiate a mediation process. Before, referring any land claim dispute to the land claims court, the regional land claim commissioner has to issue a Section 14 certificate. In terms of the Act, he or she has to certify that: 86.1. The parties have agreed in writing that it is not possible to settle the claim by way of mediation or negotiation (Section 14 (1) (a), or 86.2. It is not feasible to resolve any dispute arising from such claim by mediation and negotiation. (Section 14 (1) (b) The fourth and seventeenth defendants in early 2006, issued Section 12 Notices”, for in Joco inspections of the plaintiffs’ properties. The plaintiffs objected to the requests for in loco inspections because they were not given notice timeously and the failure of the fourth defendant to provide them with information about the claimants and to engage them in any meaningful and bona fide manner. B.447 748-419 & B-420 Page 16 of 23 \97. 98. The plaintiffs in their correspondence”* dated 27 March 2006 reiterated their call for the appointment of a mediator as is envisaged by the Land Restitution Act. This letter remained unanswered. Third Government Gazette 99. 100. On the 3 February 2006, no 28427, the third Notice” 126 of 2006 was gazetted. The gazette referred to all the Kees Zyn Dooms farms that comprised of Travelport. Claimant [ Identity No KRP | Entity Verification 401 102. 103. Kenneth Job | 6509235577083 | 4134 | Mdumane Community | No Masina The fourth defendant in a letter” dated 18 May 2006, for the first time furnished the plaintiffs with a list of claimants. The information provided remained insufficient to verify any land claims. On 7 June 2006, the fourth defendant launched an urgent application under case number LCC84/2006 in the Land Claims Court for an in loco inspection of the gazetted land 5B 4dt °5B-70 27B.442 Page 17 of 23104. The fourth defendant also sought an order authorizing the SAPS to accompany it and arrest anyone who obstructs the inspection. 105. Immediately, before launching the above application for an inspection, the fourth defendant filed a mediation certificate, as is compulsory under the Land Restitution Act. 106. _ In the above certificate in terms of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Land Restitution Act, the fourth defendant certified that it was not feasible to resolve the dispute between the parties by participating in mediation. 107. The fourth defendant did not even attempt to resolve the issues in dispute. 108. Despite my requests for information, negotiation and mediation, the fourth defendant, wrongly but consistently blamed the plaintiffs for delaying the finalization of the Badplaas land claims. 109. The letters | refer to in this affidavit formed part of answering affidavit in case L.CC84/2006 and my founding affidavit in LCC33/2007 110. The Land Claim Court dismissed the LCC84/2006 application for inspection with costs. 141. The plaintiffs again in a letter dated 1 September 2006” requested that the fourth defendant provide them with the necessary documentation to substantiate the claims. 112. The letter remained unanswered. 2B. 149 Page 18 of 23 \\113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 750.240 8.150 S1B-456 p.244 On 27 September 2006, the plaintiffs recorded in a letter”® (see annexure “C’) that the fourth defendant has consistently failed and/or refused to appoint a mediator as provided for in the Land Restitution Act. It remained unanswered. The plaintiffs on 27 February 2007 formally requested access” to information held by the first defendant in terms of Section 18(1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000 (‘PAIA’). The information requested, related to: 115.1 Claim documents, research investigation reports and any other record in the Commission's possession relating to, and claims referenced by claim numbers: KRP 11366, KRP 435, KRP 4134, KRP 6563, KRP 12021, KRP 3791, KRP 6564, KRP 5592, KRP 11478, KRP 1315; and 115.2 Details of all and any properties acquired by the commission on behalf of each of the claimants referred to above. The fourth defendant referred the matter io the Land Claims Court in terms of section 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(d) of the Land Restitution Act. Ina letter* dated 3 April 2007, the fourth defendant denied the request for information on the ground that: “This office is of the view that the issues raised herein are fully addressed in the Court referral served on your offices on the 28"March 2007". Page 19 of 23118. 119. 120. 121. 122 Fourth This matter has since 2007 been held in abeyance by the fourth defendant in the Land Claim Court. The above referral was premature — It added new land claimants to the claim, but the information remained, wholly insufficient, for a proper investigation of the merits of the claims. | have been advised that the fourth defendants filed a special plea of lis pendens on the eve of the Special Trial commencing on 19 July 2021, stating that the land claims against the plaintiffs’ properties remain pending (15 years later) before the Land Claim Court. | have furthermore been advised that the fourth defendant also filed a special plea that only the Land Claim Court (not the above Honourable Court) had jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the land claims. In my view the above special pleas are a cynical abuse of the court process by the defendants. Government Gazette 123. 124. 125. p-230 The fourth defendant published @ fourth Notice** on 16 May 2007 in the Government Gazette Notice 601 of 2007, which purports to amend the second Notice of 21 May 2004. The purpose of the third Notice was also to add new land claimants. Although | do not have first hand knowledge of alll the events, | have been informed that their had been the continuation of the campaign of violence, intimidation and lawlessness targeting the plaintiffs’ interest. This included: Page 20 of 23126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 125.1 Radio Alpha broadcasts fueling tension 125.2 Destruction of fences. 125.3 Death threats. 125.4 Attempted bombing of the Travelport petrol station and tourism facilities. The above campaign escalated in a demonstration at Travelport on 2 August 2008. It is alleged that Mr. DD Mabuza, the then MEC for Land Affairs and Agriculture arrived on the back of pickup to tell the unruly and violent demonstrators to go home. | am not able to comment on Mr Mabuza's motive for appearing at the above demonstration | have been advised that the photograph of the above illegal demonstrations, violence and damage to Travelport on 2 August 2008 has not been disputed by the defendants during cross-examination. The eleventh plaintiff subsequently requested that | accompany John Allen, the eleventh plaintiffs’ business associate, to attend a meeting at the Forever Resort in Badplaas with the Greater Badplaas Land Claim Committee (the 25" defendant) which had organized the demonstration. The Forever Resort meeting had been organized and attended by the then MEC, Mr. Mabuza and was scheduled for 12 September 2008. | arrived slightly late just as Allen hurriedly left the meeting. | was afraid of violence and waited for Mr. Mabuza to emerge. We had a short discussion and he invited me to call him to take the matter further. B-42 Page 21 of 23 \\132, 133. 134, 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 8-785, On 28 September 2011, the acting land Claims Commissioner Sunjay Singh confirmed in minutes* that no research had been done: “things were not properly done in the past hence the mess but himself her does everything according to the Restitution of Land Rights Act — he operates in terms of the law”. It was my unfortunate experience as the attorney of the plaintiffs that | was unable to resolve the ongoing conflict they were experiencing from hostile and obstructive government defendants. The land claims over Nkomazi Wildermiss remain in limbo, Professor Delius was appointed by the fourth defendant to investigate the claims and his findings are in substantial accord with my original opinions. | wish to confirm that | was not involved in the first sale of May 2007 in which half of Nkomazi Wilderniss was sold to Dubai World, except that | provided written input regarding the land claims. Dubai World was represented by Hofmeyer and the plaintiffs were represented by Jowell Glyn Marais attorneys. I was not involved in any negotiations or implementations of the May 2007. | finally wish to confirm that | also not involved in the second sale of March 2008 in which the remaining half of Nkomazi Wilderniss was sold to Dubai World, except that | provided written input regarding the land claims. Dubai World was represented by Hofmeyer and the plaintifis were represented by Jowell Glyn Marais attorneys. \ \ Page 22 of 23 YS140. _ | was also not involved in any negotiations or implementations of the March 2008 sales agreement. 141. 1am therefore unable to comment on the negotiations, structure and final terms and conditions of the above transacti \ 8 February 2022 Page 23 of 23,