Amadhila faces asset seizure over N$471 000 legal bill

The deputy sheriff in the Omusati region has been instructed to enforce two writs of execution against northern businessman Onesmus 'Tona' Amadhila to recover N$471 535.69 in taxed legal costs awarded in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Amadhila is the husband of National Assembly Speaker Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila.

A letter dated 21 July, addressed by legal firm WKH Incorporated to deputy sheriff John Adriaan Puleston, instructs the sheriff to execute two writs of execution issued in litigation between Amadhila and Tobias Mundjele and three other parties.

WKH Incorporated, acting for Tobias Mundjele and Josef Mundjele in the High Court proceedings and in the Supreme Court appeal, said the costs were awarded in favour of its clients following Amadhila's unsuccessful litigation over a disputed property in Ondangwa.

According to the letter, the deputy sheriff has been requested to serve the writs on Amadhila and attach sufficient movable property to satisfy the judgment debt of N$471 535.69.

The amount comprises N$395 272.29 in taxed High Court costs and N$76 263.40 in taxed Supreme Court costs.

WKH Incorporated requested that the deputy sheriff execute the writs as soon as possible and return proof of service once the process had been completed.

The enforcement action follows the Supreme Court's dismissal of Amadhila's appeal in December 2025, in which the country's highest court upheld the High Court's decision in the long-running dispute over Erf 1784, Extension 5, Ondangwa, where Oshoto Pension Hotel operates.

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court held that any rights arising from the alleged agreement over the property belonged to the close corporation and not to Amadhila in his personal capacity.

Deed of donation

According to the judgment, Amadhila claimed he entered into an oral agreement with Tobias Mundjele in 2007 under which the property would be transferred into a close corporation in which each of them would hold a 50% membership interest.

The Supreme Court found that, even if the agreement existed, it constituted a stipulatio alteri – a contract for the benefit of a third party – with the beneficiary being the close corporation, originally registered as Mouse Properties No. 24 CC and later renamed Oshoto Guesthouse CC.

The court held that because the close corporation, and not Amadhila personally, was the intended beneficiary of the agreement, he lacked legal standing to demand the transfer of the property or to challenge subsequent transactions involving it.

Amadhila instituted legal proceedings after discovering in 2019 that Mundjele had transferred the property to his son, Josef Penda Mundjele, through a deed of donation in 2017. He sought an order declaring the transfer unlawful and setting it aside.

The Supreme Court rejected those claims, finding that Amadhila had neither alleged fraud against Josef Mundjele nor established that he knew of any prior agreement affecting the property.

The court found no legal basis to set aside the donation.

The court also rejected Amadhila's argument that his alleged 50% membership interest in the close corporation entitled him to relief, holding that any rights arising from the agreement could only be enforced by the close corporation itself through remedies available under the Close Corporations Act.

Having reached that conclusion, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to determine the respondents' special plea of prescription.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.

Those costs were subsequently taxed, resulting in the two writs of execution now placed before the deputy sheriff for enforcement.

[email protected]