Case: Pending Vontobel v. Ministry of Urban Development (2025) CV 07

Apologies for delay, medical issue kind of snowballed after the extension I did not mean to overshoot it but I was physically unable to respond for some time, answers are below, I hope everyone understands, thank you all.

(1) What specifically makes a REPO agreement different from a normal loan?

A repo agreement in this case is a type of loan. You have many types of loans. I don't know exactly which type of loan you are referring to when you say 'normal' loan. So it's hard to compare.

(2) Do you have any explanation for why your business partner in Vontobel has continued to represent this agreement a loan?

I would imagine because the agreement is a type of loan.

(3) As required by the LDZ Contract for the disputed plots, has Raze held the required 4 monthly events in Raze Arena each month?

I believe Raze has complied with the requirements of the supplemental LDZ contract, and once the plots are returned to me, we will ensure the events are held.

Question 4a - Did Raze Holdings "make every effort to ensure the development remains lively and active with sustainable marketing and events at the expense of Raze Holdings"?

I believe so, yes.

Question 4b (to avoid confusing things by having this be at the end of the order) - If so, how?

By keeping in mind our obligations under the contract, and attempting to fulfill these to the best of our ability.

(6) Given that 40% of the points under Services & Deliverables in your LDZ contract relate to Raze Arena; marketing and events do not appear to have occurred; and the development has been generally stagnant, as evidenced in part by your inactivity; how is it that you can claim you still substantially fulfilled your LDZ contract obligations?

I don't believe the premise of your question is correct. It's my belief that Raze complied with the requirements and is committed to doing so once the plots are returned to us.

(8) Are you familiar with the clause of the Plot Regulation Act that allows eviction after 30 days of inactivity?

To some degree, yes, but I am not a lawyer.

(9) Are you aware that you met this threshold at the time the plots were evicted?

It's my understanding the clause only applies to the title holder of the plot, which was not me at the time. If you are asking me whether I had not logged in for 30 days at the time of the eviction, then that could be very well possible since my PC is broken at the moment.

Your Honor, please clarify whether you wish to allow this testimony to be included in this case now that we’ve progressed.


If so, and the testimony is not to be stricken for being past the extended deadline, I would like to issue the following objections:

Question 1 - Unresponsive answer. The witness can reasonably understand what a normal loan is from the question, especially within the context of a trial.

Question 3 - Unresponsive answer. The witness did not answer the question asked. I must also motion to strike the response that was made, since it is unnecessary commentary that does not address the actual question asked.

Question 4b - Unresponsive answer. The witness has again failed to provide details through what appears to be an intentionally vague response.

Question 9 - Unresponsive answer. The witness instead provided a claim about the Plot Regulation Act and then a non-answer.


I would request the witness be ordered to actually answer the questions, if Your Honor chooses to proceed with maintaining this testimony. However, I would like to voice the concern that the witness has already missed one deadline, with an extension, and while we empathize with his real world circumstances, we are concerned about another 48-72 hour delay, or more, in response to these questions if our objections are sustained.

The Court has reviewed the late responses submitted by the witness, Jack Walker, and the objections raised by the Defence.

While the testimony was submitted past both the original and extended deadlines, the Court has determined that it will be admitted into the record, citing:

• The central relevance of Mr. Walker to the contractual relationship at the heart of this dispute,
• The principle that material facts should be weighed on their merits, not excluded solely due to procedural missteps; and
• The fact that contempt sanctions have already been issued for the delay.

That being said, the credibility of the witness is considered diminished due to both the untimeliness and the vague, often non-responsive nature of several answers. While the Court recognizes the personal situation that prevented the witness from responding in time, the short response to these questions show minimal effort to engage with this case despite given ample time.

On the objections and request to order the witness to re-answer the questions, such is overruled in the interests of timely justice. The ability of the witness to engage with the trial appears limited, and he has demonstrated a general unwillingness to answer even under court order. Further time spent pursuing clarification from the witness is unlikely to yield substantive results and would unduly delay proceedings.

While the Defence’s objections are noted and not without merit, the Court finds that compelling further engagement from this witness would serve neither justice nor efficiency. We have already spent a significant degree of time simply trying to obtain a response from these witnesses, and cannot carry on in this manner of constant clarification.

The submitted responses will be evaluated as-is, with appropriate weight and the lack thereof assigned to their content. Jack Walker is dismissed as a witness from this case, and I offer him best wishes on resolving his personal situation.

The Defence has 48 hours to provide a list of questions to their witnesses.