G4S seeks dismissal of Namdia’s N$314m claim

G4S Secure Solutions is seeking to have Namdia’s N$314 million lawsuit dismissed, accusing the state-owned diamond company of repeatedly failing to disclose records that the security company says are necessary for it to prepare its defence against a negligence claim arising from last year’s deadly robbery.

G4S is seeking directions from the High Court to bring an application under Rule 53(2)(c) following what it describes as Namdia’s failure, without a reasonable explanation, to comply with two court orders requiring the disclosure of documents connected to the robbery at Namdia’s Windhoek headquarters.

The robbery on 18 January 2025 resulted in the deaths of Namdia’s 58-year-old senior protection officer, Francis Eiseb, and Max Endjala, one of the alleged robbers.

Namdia alleges in its civil claim that 446 diamond parcels valued at N$314 million were stolen and that G4S breached its security-services agreement by failing to prevent the loss.

G4S denies liability and has requested Namdia’s security plans and standard operating procedures, compliance records, access-control logs, guard occurrence books, visitor registers and key or credential records covering the period from 17 to 19 January 2025.

The security company has also requested disciplinary records involving Namdia employees connected to the incident, contracts with other security providers, internal investigation reports, alarm-system records and documents establishing the quantity, description and value of the diamonds. These include diamond registers and stock-control records.

According to G4S, Namdia acknowledged possessing its security plan, compliance records and documentation relating to the diamonds but objected to disclosing them because they contained confidential information.

Need-to-know basis

The parties subsequently negotiated confidentiality arrangements under which information exchanged during the litigation could be used only for the court proceedings and shared with lawyers, experts, employees and professional advisers on a need-to-know basis.

G4S alleges that Namdia nevertheless failed to produce the records despite receiving extensions and being directed to do so through High Court orders issued on 21 April and 30 July 2026. The second order required Namdia to provide the documents by 15h00 on 14 August.

According to G4S, Namdia did not meet the deadline and instead proposed extending the confidentiality arrangements on 13 August, one day before the documents were due.

The security company has also challenged Namdia’s response to its request for CCTV footage and audio recordings connected to the robbery.

Namdia said it did not possess recordings of the incident because electricity to the premises had been disconnected, but G4S argues that this did not fully answer its broader request for recordings “pertaining to” the incident or explain whether a search for such material had been conducted.

The disclosure dispute is not one-sided, as Namdia has also requested documents from G4S, including records identifying the security officers dispatched to its premises on the day of the robbery, when they were sent and how they were notified.

Namdia has further sought G4S security protocols and standard operating procedures, disciplinary records involving former G4S employee Samuel Shipanga, invoices submitted to Namdia and a purchase order associated with the security contract. G4S says it responded to Namdia’s request on 22 July 2026.

Shipanga was among the G4S personnel who responded to the robbery and has since been charged in connection with the theft, although the criminal allegations against him remain to be determined by the court.

Namdia is represented by Gilroy Kasper, while Charles Visser represents G4S. The civil matter is before managing judge Shafimana Ueitele and is scheduled for a case-management conference on Tuesday.