High Court Dismisses Redforce’s N$9 Million Lawsuit Against Rundu Council
By TUW
A legal battle between Redforce Debt Collection CC and the Town Council of Rundu has come to an end, with the High Court dismissing the company’s multi-million-dollar damages claim. The judgment, delivered on March 19, 2026, closes a case that has drawn attention in the local business and municipal sectors.
Redforce had approached the court seeking N$9.24 million, alleging that the Town Council had repudiated a 2020 agreement that gave the company exclusive rights to collect debts over 60 days old. The company terminated the contract in February 2023, arguing that the Council’s actions effectively undermined its operations and signaled a refusal to honor the agreement.
Points of Contention
Redforce’s claim focused on several alleged breaches:
- The Council reportedly failed to provide essential data and support and even interfered with collection activities.
- Public statements, including social media posts and interviews by Council officials, were interpreted by Redforce as indications that the agreement would be canceled.
- Redforce accused the Council of breaching the exclusivity clause by engaging another firm, Hengarihof (Pty) Ltd, for a pilot project involving debt collection software.
- Operational challenges, such as inaccurate water meters and mapping data, were cited as obstacles that prevented the company from meeting its targets.
The Town Council strongly contested these allegations. Officials stated that Redforce had access to office space, financial systems, and other necessary support. They argued that social media posts and interviews were personal opinions of Council members, not official actions, and noted that Redforce had consistently failed to meet the monthly debt collection target of N$5 million. The Council further clarified that the Hengarihof pilot was limited to prepaid meters and did not conflict with Redforce’s collection mandate.
Presiding Judge Justice Sibeya ruled in favor of the Town Council. The court found that Redforce had not demonstrated that the Council intended to abandon the agreement. It was also noted that contractual obligations required cooperation but did not make the Council responsible for Redforce’s ability to meet its own collection targets. Issues such as faulty water meters were not found to be a direct cause of Redforce’s performance shortfall.
In the final order, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with costs, officially ending the dispute.
Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the importance of clearly proving repudiation when claiming damages, particularly in contracts that depend on mutual cooperation. For Redforce, the judgment underscores the challenges businesses face when disputes arise over service agreements with municipal authorities.
