CASE NO.: LCA 03/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

In the matter between:

MELVIN
VAN WYK
…...................................................................APPELLANT

AND

ELIZABETH
CORNELIA GOWASES …........................................RESPONDENT

CORAM: SHIVUTE, P

Heard on: 22 January 2010

Delivered on: 29 September 2010

______________________________________________________________________________

LABOUR
APPEAL JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________________

SHIVUTE,
J: [1] This matter came on appeal against the
judgment and order of the District Labour Court which made a finding
that the Respondent was unfairly dismissed by the Appellant and
awarded damages in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant was
ordered to pay the Respondent severance allowance for 3 weeks in the
sum of N$375.00, a month’s notice salary of N$500.00, loss of
income for 8 months of N$4 000.00, N$366.06 for 22 days which were
presumed to be leave days, and N$1500.00 for “wasted costs”.
The total amount which the Appellant was ordered to pay was
N$6741.66.

[2] Prior to
proceeding with the appeal, the Appellant first brought an
application on affidavit in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of the this
Court seeking condonation for the late filing of his Heads of
Argument.

[3] The appeal was
unopposed and the Respondent did not object to the late filling of
heads of argument. Having considered the affidavit by the Applicant,
the Court was satisfied that good cause was shown why the heads of
argument were filed late and granted condonation for non-compliance
with the Rules in terms of Rule 16 (a) of the Rules of this Court.

[4] The Appellant
is a private individual who employed the Respondent as a domestic
worker for three years. Her responsibilities were to look after the
Appellant’s sons, washing and ironing clothes and to do general
domestic work.

[5] In her
particulars of claim the Respondent alleged that she was sick and
booked off by a medical doctor and that after she had been released
from hospital she was fired from her job. The alleged dismissal took
place on 02 October 2008. The relief sought was for full severance
payment, leave credit payment, notice payment as well as payment of
September 2008 salary. Respondent further claimed that her dismissal
was procedurally and substantially unfair.

[6] In his plea
the the Appellant denied having unfairly dismissed the Respondent and
it was specifically denied that the Respondent was ever fired by the
Appellant or his wife. It was further averred that Appellant ever
spoke to the Respondent since 11 September 2008, the day she left for
the extraction of her tooth until 09 October 2008 the day she gave
Appellant the complaint she filed with the Ministry of Labour and
Social Welfare against him. The Appellant stated further that he was
informed by his wife that on 22 September 2008 the complainant
arrived at the Appellant’s residence at around 20h00 and
informed his wife that she was in hospital. His wife stated that she
only told the complainant that because the Respondent did not hear
anything from the complainant since 11 September 2008 they had to get
someone temporarily to work on complainant’s behalf and they
had to pay that person. The complainant stayed away from work
previously on more than three occasions and as a result of that she
was given three verbal warnings. It was further the Appellant’s
plea that he was told by his wife that she never told the complainant
that she was fired. The complainant instead went to the room she used
to live during weekdays, and collected her belongings, left the keys
on the table in the living room and left without saying anything to
the Respondent’s wife who was in the bedroom at that moment.
The complainant never returned for work and as a result she absconded
from work and in effect left employmemt without giving any notice.

As part of his
plea the Appellant had initially also stated that the complainant
worked as a temporary worker. As a result there was no agreement on
leave, medical aid or any benefit. However, she was given annual
leave which was normally more than 24 days. The Appellant abandoned
the plea that Respondent was a temporary worker. Although the
complainant was given money on 11 September 2008 to pay for her
surgery, it was never an agreement between her and her employer that
she was going to receive medical assistance. Mr Van Wyk further made
a counter claim that the complainant owed them more than N$700.00
which was accumulated over time. She used the money to pay for her
municipal bills and used it for other purposes. The parties agreed
that she could repay that money in small installments and that it
would not be deducted from her salary. However, the complainant never
paid the money back. He concluded by stating that the complainant
dismissed herself on 22 September 2008.

[7] The District
Labour Court Chairperson’s bases for finding in favour of the
Complainant were that the Respondent and his wife should not have
employed someone temporarily in the absence of the complainant; that
instead they should have ascertained the complainant’s
whereabouts, and that they should have looked for the complainant’s
daughter for the later to come and work on complainant’s
behalf. These, the learned Chairperson found were of the determining
factors as to whether or not there was a dismissal. The test this
court does not agree with. The chairperson found that the dismissal
took effect on the 22 September when the misunderstanding started the
day when the complainant collected her personal belongings from Mr
Van Wyk’s residence and when she presented the sick leave which
Ms Van Wyk said it was not clear. The court a quo found that
the complainant was booked off on 15 September 2008 and from 24^th
to 30^th Sepetember 2008. The fact that the sick leave
certificate did not comply with the hospital requirements could not
be blamed on the complainant. The District Labour Court further made
a conclusion that an inference would be made that the cause of action
or dismissal took place on 02 October 2008 because when the
complainant left her employment to be placed under medical care in
September 2008, she did not receive her salary for September. The
fact that the employer appointed a person to work for them
temporarily meant that the money which was supposed to be paid to the
complainant was paid to that person instead. It was again the finding
of the chairperson that the Appellant pretended to be the paymaster
and the one who was dealing with the family finances although the
evidence allegedly revealed that Mrs Van Wyk interacted more with the
complainant. When the complainant had health problems Mrs Van Wyk
bought her pain killers. She had again granted her a day off sothat
she could start work on 16 September 2008. Finally it was the
conclusion of the District Labour Court Chairperson that the
dismissal was unfair. She made reference to an alleged authority in
the matter of International Union and Mutual Workers SP
“However, no citation therest was provided. The court a quo
quoted that case as laying down a principle that “in
expressing a moral value while you look at the conduct in order to
drawn inference of the fairness of the procedure that leads to a
dismissal.” This court has difficulties in understanding the
above mentioned quote because it appears to be incomplete and as
stated already to citation of the case could be found. I now turn to
the consideration of the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of
appeal.

The Appellant’s
grounds of appeal are as follows: The learned magistrate erred on the
law and or facts in upholding the Respondent’s claim as claimed
and prayed for and more particularly on the following grounds:

1. 
   That the
   Respondent on a balance of probabilities proved that she was
   unlawfully dismissed;

   
   

2. 
   That the
   Respondent did not out of her own free will and action terminate
   unilaterally the employment relationship with the appellant;

   
   

3. 
   That the
   Responded did not act untruthfully towards the Appellant in stating
   that
   

   
   

1. 
   she was due for
   dental surgery on 12 September 2008,

   
   

2. 
   that the
   Respondent forgot a medical certificate in attempting to create
   the impression that she is booked off for 15 September 2008 for
   dental surgery.

   
   

The evidence

[8] I propose to
deal first with the evidence of Mrs Mara Belinda Van Wyk the wife of
the Appellant in this matter. Her evidence is that she and her
husband were married in community of property and they had employed
the Respondent as a housekeeper to look after their two sons and to
do the cleaning, washing and ironing. On 11 September 2008, Mrs Van
Wyk was approached by the Respondent and was informed that the
Respondent would be going to a hospital on 12 September for tooth
examination. Since Mrs Van Wyk was aware that she had toothache she
helped the Respondent by giving her painkiller tablets and any other
medication she had. The Respondent left the Van Wyk’s residence
on 11 September 2008 at 17h00. Before she left, she had informed Mrs
Van Wyk that she would phone her on 15 September 2008 to let her know
what was going on. She promised Mrs Van Wyk that she would start work
on 16 September 2008 which was a Tuesday. Mrs Van Wyk gave her one to
two extra days extra off and expected her to return to work on 17 or
18 September 2008.

[9] After the
Respondent left she did not communicate with the Van Wyk’s
until on 22 September 2008 when she came to their house around 20h00
in the evening. She informed Mrs Van Wyk that she was admitted in the
Central Hospital and had come to collect her blanket and a dress. By
then she was wearing a gown. Before the Respondent went to collect
her dress and a blanket she showed Mrs Van Wyk a sick leave
certificate. According to Mrs Van Wyk, the sick leave was not very
clear to her because the Respondent did not hand it over to her.
Instead, the Respondent was holding it and kept it under the table.
Mrs Van Wyk had advised the Respondent to show the sick leave
certificate, to her husband who was attending evening classes at
Polytechnic.

[10] Mrs Van Wyk
instructed her son to accompany the Respondent to the room in order
for her to go and pick up her blanket and a dress. Meanwhile, she
went to her room to go and get some clothes which her sister gave to
her to pass on to the Respondent. However, when Mrs Van Wyk came out
of the room, she inquired from her son where the Respondent was. Her
son informed her that the Respondent had left with all her belongings
and she placed the key to the room on a desk. When the Respondent
left, she did not inform Mrs Van Wyk that she was no longer returning
to work.

[11] On 28
September 2008 the Respondent visited Ms Van Wyk at her work place
and informed her that she had just been discharged from the hospital
and that she wanted money for a taxi. Mrs Van Wyk informed the
Respondent that she had no taxi money. She had asked for a lift to go
to Academia. The Respondent then inquired about her salary to which
Ms Van Wyk said she could not paid the Respondent and referred her to
the Appellant because he is the one who normally pays the
Respondent’s salary and he is the one who was responsible for
administering their finances.

[12] Mrs Van Wyk
further testified that she did not employ anybody to occupy the
Respondent’s position. However, she had temporarily called in a
lady who came on three occasions on Friday’s to help her with
domestic work from 13h00 until 17h00. She categorically stated that
she did not dismiss the Respondent. The Respondent dismissed herself
on 22 September 2002 when she took all her belongings from their
house and she never reported for duty.

[13] The second
witness called by the Appellant was Doctor Reinhardt Collin Gariseb.
Dr Gariseb testified that he is the Superintendent of Katutura State
Hospital. He testified that he is the overall Supervisor of the
hospital adminstration. According to him, the procedure to be
followed when a patient is being admitted is that, the patient’s,
particulars and diagnoses are entered in the admission register on
the day of admission and discharge. Patients who are admitted to
undergo dental surgery are admitted in Ward 7 B. If Ward 7 B is full,
then patients are admitted in Ward 3 B which is a normal surgical
ward. The doctors normally make entries in the admission booklet or
write in a health passport. The nurses who work at the wards when
receiving the patient make admission entries in their records. If the
doctor intends to take the patient for surgery, the patient’s
name would be put on the theatre’s list. Before a patient goes
to the theatre, she has to sign a consent form.

[14] After the
operation if the patient is well she will be discharged, depending on
the circumstances of the procedure, the patient may be told to come
for a follow up. The doctor may also give sick leave to the patient.
All the basic things will be recorded in the patient’s health
passport namely the date of admission and discharge the nature of the
procedure conducted and the follow up plan. With regard to sick
leaves, doctor Gariseb explained that at the bottom of the sick leave
form, there are provisions for the doctor’s name, her
qualifications and her signature. A doctor who books off the patient
must be the one to sign the sick leave certificate. The sick leave
certificate must also bear the official date stamp and doctor’s
signature otherwise it would be rendered invalid. Apart from the
above mentioned the sick leave should also be completed fully.

[15] The doctor
was shown two leave certificates in respect of the Respondent. He
made an observation on the two sick leave certificates dated 04
September 2008 and 15 September 2008. According to the sick leave
certificates it is indicated that if the sick leave certificate does
not have an official or doctor’s stamp or not completed fully
than it is invalid. Doctor Gariseb, explained that the two sick leave
certificates were invalid because they were not signed by the doctor.
He testified that in the two sick leave certificates qualification
were indicated as dentist. According to him dentist is not a
qualification. The form required that it should be signed by the
doctor who booked off the patient and the doctor should state her/his
qualification. It is not allowed for someone to sign a sick leave
certificate on behalf of the doctor who booked the patient off.

[16] Apart from
the sick leave certificates doctor Gariseb was given a health
passport of the Respondent by Mr Tjiroze with the assistance of Mr
Beukes the representative of the Respondent. According to the medical
report Ms Gowases was admitted on 24 September 2008 and discharged on
25 September 2008. She was admitted because of epilectic fit and upon
admission she was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

[17] Apart from
the sick leave certificates and extract from the health passport the
doctor read into record a letter he indicated to have been written
under his authority. There is no evidence that the doctor dictated
the letter to the author. The author of the letter was not called to
testify. It is the findings of this court that the content of the
letter annexure C and the card annexure F is hearsay because neither
the matron the author of the letter nor the doctor who examined the
Respondent was called to testify. The sick leave certificates dated
04 September 2008 and 15 September 2008 are found to be invalid
because they do not meet the requirements of the sick leave
certificates to be issued by Katutura hospital. Apart from the above
mentioned sick leave certificate there is another sick leave
certificate dated 25 September 2008 indicating that the Respondent
was booked off from 24 September 2008 to 30 September 2008. This sick
leave certificate was not fully completed because, it was left blank
where the complaint of the patient and the diagnosis of the patient
is indicated therefore, the sick leave certificate did not meet the
requirements, and does not help the court in any way.

[18] Johannes
Matheus Van Wyk testified that he is known as Melvin Van Wyk. He was
married to the first witness in community of property. He testified
further that he was responsible for paying the Respondent’s
salary since she started to work for them, because he was responsible
for handling the family financial affairs. It was further his
testimony that he did not dismiss the Respondent unlawfully, because
the Respondent dismissed herself. He never spoke to the Respondent
from 11 September 2008 until 09 October 2008 when the Respondent
served her with a labour complaint for unlawful dismissal. Respondent
never availed herself to him for purposes of payment. She never spoke
to her concerning her sick leave. She never showed him any sick leave
before she laid a complaint. He only came to see the sick leave
certificate indicating that she was booked off from 12 September 2008
to 30 September 2008. She was also booked of from 24 – 25
September 2008.

[19] He continued
to testify that he went to Katutura Hospital and requested to be
shown whether the Respondent was admitted at the hospital in Ward 7
B. He and Ms Shaanika looked in the admission register from 11
September 2008 to 30 October 2008. They did not find Ms Gowases’
name. At the Labour Commissioner’s office Mr Van Wyk confronted
Ms Gowases that her name did not appear in the register of people who
were admitted at Ward 7 B. Ms Gowases then informed him that she was
admitted at Ward 5 B. Mr Van Wyk went back to the hospital and
checked the register of the patients admitted at Ward 5 B. He did not
see Ms Gowases’ name. He was referred back to ward 3 B because
if ward 5 B or 7 B is full patients could be referred to ward 3 B. Ms
Gowases’ name did not appear in War 3 B. Mr Van Wyk went back
to Ms Shaanika and they went back to Ward 5 B. They searched for Ms
Gowases’ name and they did not trace it. The secretary, at Ward
5 B took them to Ward 5 A. They checked the register at Ward 5 A and
they found Ms Gowases’ name. According to that register Ms
Gowases was admitted on 24 September 2008 and discharged on 25
September 2008. Ward 5 A is not a dental ward.

[20] After the
discovery, they asked Doctor Gariseb who was on leave to give them
something in writing. Doctor Gariseb instructed the matron of the
hospital to give them a letter, exhibit C. before this court. It was
put to Mr Van Wyk through cross-examination that he by checking the
register he intruded upon Ms Gowases medical confidentiality. Mr Van
Wyk responded that he had reasons to believe that the claim she was
making was fraudulent, he was the employer paying for her salary and
the Respondent stayed away from work and the sick leave certificates
were used as the basis of the claim, he had the right to confirm
whether the Respondent was really indeed admitted especially given
the fact that those sick leave certificates were not submitted to him
before the respondent laid the claim. After Mr Van Wyk was
re-examined by his legal representative, he was questioned at lengthy
by the chairperson. After he finished questioning him the legal
representative for Mr Van Wyk in the district court wanted to
question Mr Van Wyk to clarify certain issues however he was denied
that opportunity by the chairperson. I must point out that the
chairperson adopted an irregular procedure by questioning the witness
and not allowing the parties to question the witness concerning
issues which arose from the court’s questioning.

[21] On the other
hand Ms Gowases the complainant now the Respondent testified in
favour of her claim. Her evidence was that she started working for
the Van Wyk’s family since 2 September 2005 until the date she
went on sick leave. Respondent worked from Mondays to Fridays 7h30 to
about 18h00. She further testified that she went to stay at the
employer’s work since the beginning of 2008. It was her
testimony that she had a good relationship with Ms Van Wyk. However,
she had few problems with Mr Van Wyk because she sometimes used to
oversleep and reported late for duties.

[22] She continued
to testify that during September 2008 she fell ill. During her
illness Ms Van Wyk would go to the pharmacy and buy her some tablets.
The tooth became seriously sick and Ms Van Wyk advised the Respondent
to go to the hospital. She gave her N$28.00 to go to the doctor. On
11 September 2008 Ms Gowases visited the hospital. She was told to go
back on 15 September 2008. On 15 September 2008 her tooth was
extracted successfully. Unfortunately one got broken and it had to be
drilled. After the Respondent was seen by the doctor, she was given
sick leave certificate by the doctor’s secretary. The
Respondent did not recover fully after her tooth was extracted. She
went back to the hospital because she was in pain. She could not
remember the exact date she went there, it could be 21 or 22 of
September 2008. The Respondent was admitted.

[23] When it was
pointed out to her that her health passport was written 23 September
2008 she indicated that, that was the date she was taken by her
neighbors to the hospital. She was admitted on 24 September 2008 and
released on 01 October 2008. When she was asked whether she was not
released on 25 September 2008 she testified that she went back on 25
September 2008 and had a follow up on 01 September 2008. Respondent
testified that whilst she was in the hospital she visited her
employer and showed Ms Van Wyk “the doctor’s papers”
Ms Van Wyk told her that her husband was unhappy because of her
absence at work. She explained to Ms Van Wyk that she could not phone
her.

[24] Respondent
further testified that Ms van Wyk was not interested in what the
Respondent was saying. She was just looking at her son. She put the
“paper” I presume the sick leave certificate on the table
but Ms Van Wyk did not look at it. Since her main purpose to go to Mr
Van Wyk’s place was to collect her blanket and a dress, she
walked to her room, it was at the stage Ms Van Wyk told her that she
was no longer needed. She already got someone to come on Saturday to
do the ironing. Since the Respondent did not know what to do she went
to the room and collected her belongings and left because she
understood Ms Van Wyk to mean that she was dismissed. Respondent
further testified that she was paid N$500.00 per month, and the
accommodation which she was given by the Appellant was quite neat. It
consisted of a double bed, blanket and a shower and a table. She
further testified that the rent in Katutura area where she lives
varied from one place to another. It ranged between N$500.00 –
N$1000.00. The evidence concerning her income and accommodation
facilities was led in order to establish the Respondent’s loss.
The Respondent was asked through cross-examination why she laid a
complaint against Mr Van Wyk. Some of her answers were that Ms Van
Wyk, referred her to Mr Van Wyk, it was obvious he was in charge. She
also had a problem because she was told by Ms Van Wyk that Mr Van Wyk
was upset. She gave several answers which did not answer the
question. As to the question regarding when she was dismissed she
indicated that she was dismissed on the date she took the sick leave
to Ms Van Wyk which could be the 22 September 2008.

[25] When the
Respondent was asked whether it was impossible for Doctor Zenga to
sign the sick leave certificate, she respondent that she infact
requested the sick leave from the Secretary in order to show it to
her employer. Respondent was further asked why she did not leave her
sick leave certificate with Ms Van Wyk and she responded that Ms Van
Wyk was not interested in looking at the papers and she had no reason
to leave the papers with her because she told her that she was no
longer needed.

[26] Ms Gowases
was again asked whether when she saw Ms Van Wyk later at her work why
she did not give her sick leave certificates for the 15^th
, 24^th and 25^th September she answered that she
brought the leave certificates to Ms Van Wyk as well as the
laboratory result but Ms Van Wyk refused.

Furthermore,
Respondent was asked whether if she understood to be fired on 22
September already when she went to Ms Van Wyk’s house why would
she present medical reports to Ms Van Wyk again at her work place?
She did choose not to answer the question.

[27] It was
submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent came with a
premeditated intention to leave the Appellant’s employment on
22 September 2008 as she arranged for a motorvehicle to transport her
belongings even before she was allegedly told by the Appellant’s
wife that someone was employed in her position. It was further
submitted that the Respondent dismissed herself by failing to offer
her services to the Appellant since 12, 13, 21 and 23 September 2008
and from 26 – 30 September 2008. Should one accept the
Respondent’s version that she received dental surgery on 15
September 2008 she was only booked off for a day. It was again
submitted that at no stage did Ms Van Wyk or the Appellant dismiss
the Respondent. The fact that Mr Van Wyk went to collect clothes from
her sister in order to give them to the Respondent did not conform
with the act of an employer who had the intention to fire the
employee.

[28] Section 46
(3) of the repealed Labour Act, Act 6 of 1992, stipulate:

“When in any proceedings
in terms of this section it is proved that an employee was dismissed
from his or her employment or that any disciplinary action has been
taken against such employee, it shall be presumed that, unless the
contrary is proved by the employer concerned, such employee has been
dismissed unfairly or that such disciplinary action has been taken
unfairly against such employee”.

The above section
can be interpreted to mean that where an unfair dismissal is alleged
against an employer, but such dismissal is in dispute as in this
case, the employee has the onus of proof to show that the alleged
dismissal occurred. Once the employee discharged the burden of proof,
the employer shall be deemed to have dismissed the employee unfairly
unless the contrary is proved.

[29] This court is
called upon to determine whether Respondent was dismissed by the
Appellant or his wife. The Respondent approached the Appellant’s
wife on 11 September 2008 and informed her that she will be going to
the hospital on 12 September 2008 for tooth extraction. The
Respondent agreed with the Appellant’s wife that she would
communicate to her on 15 September to let her know what was going on.
Respondent undertook to start work on 16 September 2002. However the
Respondent failed to communicate to the Appellant about her
whereabouts. It is the Respondent’s testimony that she was
admitted in the hospital between the period 12 to 30 September 2008.
However, there are no entries registered in wards 7B, 5B or 3B in
respect of the Respondent. The only entry which refers to the
epilepsy attack the Respondent suffered was found in the register of
ward 5A for the periods 24 to 25 September 2008. However, if this
court has to accept the Respondent’s version that her tooth was
extracted, this would mean that the Respondent was only booked on 15
September 2008 and she was due to report for work on 16 September
2008.

[30] The
Respondent could not account for the days from 16 to 21 September
2008 and 23 to 30 September 2008. The Respondent only approached the
Appellant’s wife on 22 September and informed her that she was
admitted in the hospital. On that date the Respondent alleged that
she was dismissed by the Appellant’s wife by telling her that
her services were no longer needed, which was disputed by the
Appellant’s wife. On the same evening the Appellant’s
wife went to collect the clothes in order to give them to the
Respondent however, she found the Respondent already gone with all
her belongings. This fact that the Appellant’s wife wanted to
give clothes to the Respondent is inconsistent with the action of an
employer who wants to dismiss an employee.

[31] Because the
Respondent was unable to explain for her absenteeism at work, she
connived with certain individuals and obtained unauthorized leave
certificates. This is an indication that the Respondent was not
honest to her employer. Although the Respondent stated that she was
told that her services were not needed, the Court aquo did not
make a credibility finding why she accepted the Respondent’s
version and rejected the Appellant’s. Respondent exhibited an
element of dishonesty by presenting a false sick leave certificate to
her employer. This is an indication that she is a reliable witness.

[32] The
Respondent failed to render her services to the Appellant in exchange
for remuneration; therefore she was in breach of contract. She
absented herself from duty without permission and there were no
justifiable grounds for her absence. She stayed away from work under
the erroneous assumption that she was dismissed. See Cross Country
Carriers v Farmer NLLP (1) 226 NLC and Swartbooi v Hennis NLLP 2002
(2) 367 NLC..

[33] Having read
the record of appeal and the arguments from the Appellant’s
counsel, it is my finding that the Respondent was not dismissed by
the Appellant. She dismissed herself. It follows that the chairperson
of the District Labour Court misdirected herself by finding that the
Respondent discharged the onus that she was unfairly dismissed.

[34] In the result
the following order is made:

(1) The appeal is
upheld.

(2) The order of
the District Labour Court given in favour of the Respondent is set
aside.

(3) As for costs,
this court is enjoined by section 20 of the Repealed Labour Act, Act
6 of 1992 not to make any order as to costs unless it is of the
opinion that a party to proceedings before it has acted frivolously
or vexationsly. I am not of such opinion and there shall be no order
as to costs.

___________________________

SHIVUTE
PRESIDENT

COUNSEL ON
BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: Mr Horn

Instructed by:
M B De Klerk & Associates

COUNSEL ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: Hewat Beukes

C/O Workers Advice
Centre

4479 Dodge Avenue

KHOMASDAL

WINDHOEK