By Sostenus Wilherm
The High Court has dismissed Profile Car Hire’s fourth attempt to amend its N$5.9 million claim against the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA), with the judge criticising the company’s repeated efforts to revise its case and describing its approach as a “trial-and-error expedition.”
The dispute stems from a vehicle rental agreement signed in November 2020, under which Profile Investments (Pty) Ltd, trading as Profile Car Hire, supplied 86 vehicles to the NSA for use during the national census mapping and pilot project.
The contract was valued at more than N$8.4 million and required the agency’s drivers to take reasonable care of the vehicles and report accidents in accordance with the agreement.
After the project ended, Profile Car Hire sued the NSA, claiming that several vehicles were damaged, two were written off in collisions and the agency failed to pay invoices for repairs and other losses.
The company is seeking more than N$5.9 million in compensation, saying the damaged vehicles, unpaid invoices and lost business caused it significant financial harm.
However, the judgment delivered on 1 July did not deal with whether the NSA is liable for those losses.
Instead, the court considered whether Profile Car Hire should be allowed to amend its court papers for a fourth time.
According to the judgment, the company wanted to revise its claim to better explain why it believes the NSA should be held responsible for the actions of its employees who drove the rental vehicles during the census project.
Profile Car Hire argued that the proposed amendments would clarify the issues before the court and ensure that the dispute could be decided on its merits.
It also said the delay in bringing the application resulted from the time it took to gather information and from its earlier misunderstanding of the legal basis for some of its claims.
The NSA opposed the application, arguing that it came more than four years after the pleadings had closed and at a stage when the matter was already well advanced. The agency also argued that the proposed amendments introduced a new basis for the claim and would unfairly prejudice its defence.
Judge Gabriel Komboni agreed with the NSA, saying that while courts generally allow amendments where they help resolve disputes fairly, they are not granted automatically, especially when a party has repeatedly attempted to change its case.
The judge found that Profile Car Hire had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay and that the proposed amendments still did not clearly establish a legally sustainable claim.
“The applicant’s case is riddled with noncompliance, condonation applications and various notices to amend.
The applicant appears to be on a trial-and-error expedition,” Komboni said.
The court also noted that this was not the company’s first unsuccessful attempt to amend its claim.
Previous notices to amend had either been challenged by the NSA, withdrawn or abandoned before the latest application was brought.
Komboni said allowing another amendment would not serve the interests of justice because the proposed changes remained legally deficient despite the company’s repeated attempts to correct them.
The application was dismissed, and the court ordered Profile Car Hire to pay the NSA’s legal costs, including the costs of both an instructing and instructed legal practitioner.
Although the ruling is a setback for Profile Car Hire, it does not bring the underlying lawsuit to an end.
The court did not decide whether the NSA is liable for the damages claimed, nor did it rule on the merits of the N$5.9 million claim itself.
The judgment deals only with the company’s unsuccessful attempt to amend its pleadings.
The main damages action remains before the High Court and has been postponed for a status hearing before Judge De Jager, where the future conduct of the case is expected to be considered.
