Iuze Mukube
A purported failure by the Namibia Airports Company to comply with court orders directing it to restore Puma Energy’s possession of specified premises and refuelling facilities has resulted in the company being sued for contempt of court.
Following an application by the energy company in which it sought the High Court to order Namibia Airports Company (NAC) to urgently restore its access and control over key fuel and operational areas at Eros and Andimba Toivo ya Toivo airports, the court granted in favour of Puma.
Puma had argued in that application that NAC spoliated it, unlawfully deprived it of its possession of its aircraft fueling business conducted at its fuel facilities at the two airports on 11 March 2026, without following legal procedures.
It claimed it was unlawfully deprived, at the Eros Airport, of its possession of a depot and bulk facility and a roadway from the depot to the apron and portions of the apron.
Meanwhile, at Ondangwa Airport, it was deprived of possession of the Jet Tank and Avgas Tank, a portion of the apron adjacent to these tanks, the office and the walkway and roadway from the office to the tanks and the terminal.
However, on 11 March, Puma was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents, which included NAC, Central Oil Namibia, the Inspector General of the Namibia Police, Commissioner Naftal Lungameni Sakaria of the Oshana region at that time, and Namibia Protection Services.
Puma relied on the mandament van spolie principle, arguing that it was unlawfully disposed of and should be restored to its previous position without the court first deciding on ownership or contractual rights.
Judge Gabriel Komboni on 2 April 2026 granted the mandament van spolie, directing NAC to restore Puma’s possession of the premises and facilities.
However, although physical possession of the specified premises was subsequently restored, NAC allegedly maintained that the order did not require it to permit Puma to restore its aircraft refuelling business.
Therefore, Puma brought NAC back to court for contempt, with the principal contention being whether the order was confined to the restoration of physical possession or also required NAC to permit Puma to continue it’s refuelling business.
Acting Judge James Devittie, presiding over this matter, found that Judge Komboni rightly ruled and had taken into account that Puma’s possession comprised two intertwined aspects.
The first the corporeal possession of the premises and the second, the incorporeal possession constituted by the exercise of Puma’s refuelling business.
Judge Devittie found that the refusal to permit Puma to exercise the latter was regarded similarly by the court as constituting a dispossession.
He found that taking all that into account, the meaning of the direction to restore possession was not reasonably open to discussion.
“It encompassed both the corporeal possession of the specified premises and facilities and the incorporeal aspect constituted by the exercise of Puma’s refuelling business from those premises.”
Therefore, the order required NAC not merely to restore physical possession but also to permit Puma to continue conducting it’s refuelling business.
He found, therefore, that NAC had not complied with the order, and it had admitted that it had not permitted Puma to resume it’s refuelling operations.
Judge Devittie found that non-compliance by NAC was established beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof to establish that non-compliance was willful and mala fide was not established to find civil contempt.
He found that the company had acted according to legal advice that restoration of physical possession constituted compliance with the order.
Therefore, he stated he would afford NAC a final opportunity to comply fully with the 2 April 2026 order, including permitting Puma to continue conducting its refuelling business pending the final determination of NAC’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
NAC was further directed not to interfere with, obstruct or deny Puma’s possession, control or use of the facilities, premises, roads and access points specified in the order of 2 April 2026, without an order of court.
Considering NAC’s failure to comply with the earlier order, it was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
The judgement was delivered on (Wednesday) 12 August 2026. [email protected]
