Hertta-Maria Amutenja
The High Court has rejected an attempt by the commissioner of inland revenue, the minister of finance, and the attorney general to file a counterclaim in their ongoing battle with Stuttafords Stores Namibia (Pty) Ltd over a disputed N$3.8 million value added tax (VAT) refund.
In a ruling delivered on 15 August 2025, acting judge Gerson Narib also refused part of the defendants’ application to amend their plea.
The case stems from tax disputes going back more than 20 years.
In 2002, Stuttafords received N$2.6 million, which it treated as capital, while the commissioner regarded it as revenue and taxable.
The clothing and fashion retailer objected, but it claims that the ministry of finance lost its file and failed to resolve the matter.
Stuttafords filed further claims under the Income Tax Act in 2009.
In 2016, Stuttafords lodged another objection to the 2002 income assessment, but this was rejected as out of time.
In 2017, Inland Revenue informed the retailer that any VAT refund would be set off against alleged tax liabilities in income tax, VAT, and employee tax.
Stuttafords has since asked the court to review several of these decisions and to set them aside as a precursor to its refund claim.
The government has denied the refund is payable, alleging the company failed to submit various returns and that the commissioner is entitled to withhold payment.
While striking down the counterclaim bid, the court gave the state a partial win by granting leave to amend parts of its plea.
“The defendants are granted leave to further amend their amended plea as set out in the notice of intention to amend dated 30 August 2024,” Narib ruled. The amended plea must be filed by 22 August 2025.
Narib ordered the defendants to pay the costs of the amendment application, capped at N$20 000, as well as the full costs occasioned by the amendment.
“The defendants must pay the costs related to the amendment without a limit and also cover the fees for one lawyer who represents them and one who instructs them,” the judgement states.
Narib stressed that an earlier dismissal of special pleas by another judge did not determine the merits of the case.
He rejected the plaintiff’s argument that issue estoppel prevented the state from amending its plea.
He added that the findings in the earlier judgement “were not necessary and do not support a defence of issue estoppel on the merits.”
