Former magistrate found not guilty in car insurance fraud case

Staff Reporter

ONDANGWA-based magistrate, Liwena Walter Mikiti, has been found not guilty in a case where he was accused of fraudulently claiming an amount of N$234,555 after a car accident from an insurance company.

The accused was arrested on charges of fraud, alternatively theft, forgery, and uttering a forged document, and contravening section 4(b)(1) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 29 of 2004. He was found not guilty on all three charges.

Mikiti, who was the owner of a 2009 Mercedes Benz C180K BE Classic insured by Santam Namibia through Welwitschia Insurance Brokers, was involved in a chain collision with three other vehicles on the Oshakati main road near Oneshila on 13 June 2014. His car sustained minor damage and was still drivable afterwards.

According to the charge sheet, it was alleged that Mikiti submitted a claim stating that the accident occurred on 14 June 2014 and that his vehicle sustained extensive damage, rendering it a total write-off.

It was further alleged that Mikiti used the particulars of the accident from 13 June 2014, along with the accident report issued for that incident, when he filed the insurance claim. According to the State, it was on the basis of those details that Santam Namibia paid Mikiti N$234,555.

The State argued that the former magistrate lied or misrepresented to Santam that his vehicle was involved in an accident on 14 June, not 13 June 2014, and that it had sustained damage beyond economical repair. Additionally, it was alleged that Mikiti falsely claimed it was a 2010 model instead of a 2009 model. The vehicle was insured for a total of N$246,900, of which he was paid N$234,555 based on his claim.

In her ruling, High Court Judge Eileen Rakow stated that there was no evidence that the accused was the person who changed the date and vehicle model on the copy of the accident report submitted to the Welwitschia Insurance Brokers’ branch office. Moreover, the judge noted that there was no evidence indicating the accused had any knowledge that the document had, in fact, been altered, and therefore he did not utter the document.