Staff Reporter
THE National Petroleum Corporation of Namibia (Namcor) is as persistent as a hound with a bone, appealing to set aside a judgment which recently favoured former Managing Director, Immanuel Mulunga.
The labour case which Mulunga won in June 2025 was instituted by Namcor, who claimed that Mulunga breached his employment contract with it on three different incidents and such breach resulted in financial loss to Namcor.
In terms of claim one, Namcor alleged that Mulunga, on 18 August 2022, without the consent of the Namcor Board of Directors, unlawfully caused a transfer of monies in the amount of US$6,700,000.00 (which at the time was equivalent to about N$123 million) from Namcor’s account to an external company known as Sungara Energies Limited, for onward payment to Sonangol Pesquisa e Produção, SA (“Sonangol”) for the acquisition of oil blocks in Angola.
With regard to claims two and three, Namcor alleged that Mulunga breached the credit limit of Namcor with regard to Erongo Petroleum and Enercon Namibia, which led to the supply of fuel on credit to the two companies above their prescribed credit limits. Both companies were recently placed under a final order of liquidation for owing Namcor over N$300 million cumulatively, with Mulunga also being jailed for the said transgressions.
Namcor said that the arbitrator who ruled in favour of Mulunga erred in law in finding that he lacked jurisdictional competence to adjudicate on the dispute referred to the Labour Commissioner by the appellant.
“The Arbitrator erred in law when he dismissed the appellant’s claim. Firstly, because if he was right to find that he had no jurisdiction, then he had no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim. Secondly, he did indeed have jurisdiction, but then he could only dismiss the claim after hearing evidence on the merits,” Namcor’s legal practitioners argued, asking that the Labour Commissioner’s office set aside the ruling made in favour of Mulunga and also the cost awarded in the amount of N$4,000.
They contended that the Labour Act does not say that only employees may make use of the Labour Tribunal — a dispute resolution Article 12 institution — but that the Labour Act plainly permits an employer to also make use of such a Tribunal as a complainant.
“In short, for purposes of jurisdiction, the only issue which the arbitrator had to determine was whether a dispute existed between the employer and employee. For that purpose, he had to look at the definition of ‘dispute’. If he did that, he would have found that he had jurisdiction,” Kangueehi & Kavendjii Inc. argued.
