it's all good!, page-19

Thanks for your thoughts Franko.I agree with your thinking except,perhaps, for the conspiracy theory.I subscribe to the "smoaking gun theory" that has been mentioned on some occasions.
I suspect ,like most posters ,I find it difficult just to try and analyse this situation in simple terms -- because I have not been privy to all of the facts and documentation.But for what it is worth here is my train of logic(I have to make a lot of assumptions)
Mr A , aided by his representative,sold MLS a tenement.
Due diligence identified that it was not the tenement originally described.
MLS, assisted by LorentzAngula, threatened action to redress that issue and reached an out of court settlement which gave us epl 3308.
Presumably the settlement was professionally documented by LA and agreed and signed by the parties.This was then provided to MME and with the signed agreement of Mr A the Minister transferred the licence to MLS ( LATE 2006??).
In good faith, MLS went about its business exploring and expending considerable money- I repeat in GOOD FAITH.
At some stage ,Mr A decided that he had been dudded (I assume)and finally took legal action in early 2009 -- more than 2 years after he signed on the dotted line indicating he was a willing party to the settlment and presumably having obtained his own legal advice.

I don't know what he is arguing but I think the following points are in our favour :

Our Chairman is a commercial lawyer with 30 + years experience and I have to assume that LA are top draw silks
>it is beyond my comprehension that they would not be capable of putting together a settlment agreement that isn't bulletproof in court.
>What's that you say ? - we didn't pay him for the tenement.
Well we did give consideration -- in effect his payment was our agreement not to pursue him for damages.

Mr A appears not to have pursued his application for review of the matter in a reasonable time
> All cases have different facts but see the case PURITY MANGANESE Vs MINISTER OF MINES AND ENERGY ,Case No.A 04/07
on the Namibian High Court website.
It contains much relevance to our case including the following statement "In the relative short periods that such licences are valid , it would be unreasonable to wait several months before a decision of the Minister is taken on review in this Court".
Also there would be significant prejudice to MLS if it lost the tenement now -- after all it has expended major money in good faith over a lengthy period without challenge.

The Namibian court system appears to be reasonably robust ( at least to me on my reading )

MME appear to have been satisfied with the epl transfer documentation when it was originally presented -- I have to assume that they are supporting the MLS position in court.

One complicating factor is that there are a number of respondents :
MLS -- defending the action
MME-- presumably defending its tranfer of the licence and refusing Mr A's request to transfer it back to him.
Brian Moore --I can't even guess ??

Based on the limited amount I know it is hard to see how , or , why our settlement with Mr A wouldn't be watertight.
Maybe there are issues between Mr A and Brian Moore but I would think that MLS would be an innocent party to any dispute between them ??

My head says clearly yes .... but ?
Regards
Q