Staff Reporter
THE council for the Municipality of Walvis Bay and the Redforce debt management company have concluded a settlement agreement in which the Municipality of Walvis Bay has tendered an apology to Redforce, which will result in Redforce being reinstated to collect debt on behalf of the municipality.
Redforce Debt Management cc filed an urgent application earlier this year, in April 2024, in the High Court to halt the decision taken by the Walvis Bay Municipal Council to terminate its debt management services to the council.
In the agreement, the Walvis Bay Municipality retracted allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in which it accused Redforce of delivering fraudulent invoices to it in respect of training licence fees, monthly system support, and system configuration and set-up fees. The Municipality of Walvis Bay is expected to issue a public apology in five days in this regard.
“That the parties jointly agreed that they will not proceed with the action any further and pray to the Honourable Court that the matter be removed from the court roll and be regarded as finalised,” the settlement agreement reads.
Redforce was awarded the tender to render debt management services through a public bid advertised by the Walvis Bay Municipal Council. During June 2023 and July 2023, Redforce received communication from the council’s acting CEO, in his capacity as the accounting officer, informing Redforce that it was the successful tenderer.
In the first list of accounts handed over to Redforce for collection were a total of 10,288 debtor accounts (all 60 days and older) with a combined book value of over N$300 million in total. However, their contract was cancelled after uproar from the Walvis Bay community over the strict austerity measures the company would take to collect monies owed to the municipality.
Redforce, in its court case, alleged that three councillors who agreed to pass the motion to terminate Redforce’s services were also indebted to the municipality, and their accounts had been handed over to Redforce. They argued that this was not disclosed to the municipal council prior to the passing of the motion and subsequent resolution, and as such, they acted contrary to the provisions of the first respondent’s Standing Rules.
