Allexer Namundjebo
The chief executive officer of the Roads Authority (RA), Hippy Tjivikua, has opposed an urgent High Court application by former executives Sidney Boois and Richard Milinga.
Tjivikua says the duo is trying to create urgency where there is none.
An internal disciplinary process found the duo guilty of misconduct, leading to their dismissal in February 2026.
In court papers filed before the High Court, Tjivikua said their appeal is already underway within the institution.
“The applicants are attempting to bypass established labour processes, despite the fact that an appeal is already underway,” Tjivikua said.
He said an appeal hearing was held on 16 March within the required timeframe, with a chairperson appointed through an extension of an existing contract.
Boois and Milinga are challenging both the outcome and the fairness of the process. They are seeking urgent reinstatement.
Tjivikua said their delay in approaching the court weakens their claim of urgency.
“The applicants delayed in approaching the court, which clearly demonstrates that there is no immediate or irreparable harm,” he said.
He said the matter should be handled through labour dispute channels and not the High Court.
The Roads Authority is asking the court to remove the case from the urgent roll or dismiss it with costs.
Boois’ and Milinga’s dismissals followed a flawed process linked to a N$16 million vehicle procurement tender.
They argued that the process involved “fundamental irregularities” and employer interference.
They claim the disciplinary chairperson was pressured to conclude the case within timelines set by the board.
They also said key evidence was ignored, including testimony and documents submitted in their defence.
They claim the ruling was inconsistent, saying the chairperson indicated no guilty finding at one stage, but the final outcome found them guilty.
“The outcome should be set aside,” they said.
They denied wrongdoing in the procurement of law enforcement vehicles.
Boois said pricing approvals were handled by the procurement committee and denied creating unlawful financial obligations.
He also rejected claims that he misrepresented approval from the Road Fund Administration, saying consent was obtained during meetings.
Milinga denied allegations that he instructed staff to receive vehicles and goods improperly, saying the evidence does not prove misconduct.
Their lawyer has argued that the disciplinary process contained “serious errors” and that the dismissals were unfair.
The High Court has not yet decided whether the case will be heard urgently.
The internal appeal process at the Roads Authority is expected to continue in May.
