Renthia Kaimbi
The High Court has temporarily blocked the municipality of Walvis Bay from terminating its controversial debt-collection contract with RedForce Debt Management CC, escalating a dispute between the town’s political leadership and its chief executive officer, Victoria Kapenda.
In an urgent order handed down on Monday by Justice Michael Mtambo, the court halted the implementation of a council resolution adopted on 7 October 2026 to terminate the contract with immediate effect.
The order prohibits the municipality and its officials from withdrawing RedForce’s debt-collection mandate, cutting off the company’s access to municipal debtor information and systems, or informing municipal debtors that its mandate has ended.
The court also ordered the municipal council and the chief executive officer to pay RedForce’s legal costs, including the fees of two instructed legal practitioners.
The interdict follows a widening legal dispute over the contract, which was initially targeted for termination following a directive by urban and rural development minister James Sankwasa.
In a memorandum dated 16 October 2026, Kapenda challenged the legality of the council’s decision to appoint Murorua Kurtz Kasper Legal Practitioners to represent the municipality, including herself, in the proceedings.
The Windhoek Observer established that although Kapenda was listed as the second respondent in the matter, she allegedly sought to use a private lawyer to state that she was in disagreement with RedForce’s contract termination.
However, government attorneys allegedly filed against RedForce on her behalf and took a position to keep a watching brief (to attend and observe court proceedings without leading evidence for a client with a separate interest in a case).
“Well, actions speak louder than words. It appears she wanted a default judgement in favor of Redforce,” a source said.
Addressing deputy mayor Miina Hangula and copying all councillors, Kapenda raised concerns about the legal basis for the appointment, the notice given for the special council meeting and compliance with the Public Procurement Act.
She also questioned who had authorised the law firm to represent the council. According to the memorandum, Kapenda had asked legal practitioner Gilroy Kasper about the instruction during an informal meeting and was allegedly told that the firm had been instructed by Management Committee chairperson Ephraim Shozi.
Kapenda said she was withholding implementation of the legal appointment pending clarification of the issues raised.
“I expressly reserve my position concerning the procedural regularity, legal effect and implementation of the decisions in question,” she wrote, warning of potential “avoidable legal or financial consequences” for the municipality.
However, in an answering affidavit filed on behalf of the council, Hangula defended the decision to terminate the contract, arguing that the agreement between the municipality and RedForce was legally defective from the outset.
She pointed to inconsistencies in the contract documents, saying the original agreement provided for a duration of seven months, while an addendum stipulated a five-year termination period.
Hangula further argued that neither the Management Committee nor the council had authorised the conclusion of the original agreement or its addenda, rendering them beyond the powers of the administrators who signed the agreements on behalf of the municipality.
She also relied on Section 31A of the Local Authorities Act, which requires municipal contracts to be signed by the chief executive officer and countersigned by the chairperson of the Management Committee.
According to Hangula, the absence of the required countersignature rendered the agreement “null and void”.
She argued that RedForce was seeking to preserve an unlawful arrangement, stating that the company “in desperation to cling to ultra vires contracts expects the honourable court to perpetuate an illegality.”
Hangula also raised concerns about the company’s debt-collection practices, citing complaints from residents over what she described as “inhumane and disrespectful treatment” of elderly and poor people.
She questioned the legality of the 12% collection commission, plus value-added tax, arguing that the tariff had not been authorised and fell outside the powers delegated to the CEO.
The deputy mayor also denied that Sankwasa had exerted undue influence over the council, maintaining that all nine councillors unanimously supported the termination because they considered the contract invalid.
RedForce, however, maintains that the council’s decision was politically motivated and intended to pre-empt a pending court judgment.
In her founding affidavit, RedForce representative Selma Ndagwedapo Nangombe said the company had launched an urgent application on 28 September 2026 challenging Sankwasa’s directive to terminate the agreement.
According to Nangombe, the municipality elected not to oppose that application, with judgment reserved for 20 October 2026.
She argued that the council’s decision on 7 October to terminate the contract immediately was an attempt to circumvent the pending judgment.
RedForce further alleged that political pressure had influenced the process. Nangombe attached a press release from the Independent Patriots for Change’s Erongo regional leadership, which accused Sankwasa of a “gross abuse of power” and attempting to “bully the council into submission” over the contract.
The company also warned that terminating the agreement would cause significant financial harm.
According to Nangombe, RedForce had established a dedicated operation in Walvis Bay and employed 29 people, with monthly salary commitments stated in the affidavit as exceeding N$221 000.
The High Court’s order temporarily keeps the RedForce contract and its operations in place while the remaining part of the application is determined.
The underlying dispute over the legality of the contract and the council’s authority to terminate it therefore remains unresolved.
