Local transport firm asks Court to block contract termination by German-owned manufacturer

DC Tours files urgent application after Kromberg & Schubert cancels employee transport deal citing breach, then admits the breach claim was erroneous

A local transportation company has asked the High Court to urgently block a German-owned manufacturer from terminating a multiyear employee transport contract, accusing the firm of sidestepping its own dispute-resolution procedures and switching the legal basis for cancellation after its first justification fell apart.

In papers filed in Gaborone on 8th September 2026 DC Tours (Pty) Ltd asked a judge to restrain Kromberg & Schubert Botswana (Pty) Ltd from acting on a termination notice dated 1st September 2026 – a notice originally titled “Cancellation due to Breach of Service Quality” that was recast three days later as a termination “for convenience.”

The case turns on whether a commercial party can invoke breach to exit a contract quickly, then retreat to a convenience clause when the contractual requirements of a breach-based termination prove inconvenient – a maneuver DC Tours’ lawyers say the law does not permit.

Legal observers in Gaborone say the dispute highlights the power imbalance between multinational manufacturers operating in Botswana and the local firms that serve them.

The two companies had done business for years. Under a prior contract dating to May 2021, DC Tours moved roughly 1,100 Kromberg & Schubert employees daily across routes spanning the greater Gaborone area – from Ramotswa to Mmokolodi, Gabane to Kgale. That deal was extended through February 2026.

In March 2026, Kromberg & Schubert issued a Letter of Intent for a new three-year contract, expressly authorizing DC Tours to “begin mobilization and preparatory activities.” DC Tours accepted, and the parties negotiated a draft Service Level Agreement – a 25-page document with annexures covering shift penalties, safety certifications and fuel-price adjustment formulas. The start date was deferred from June to July at Kromberg & Schubert’s request.

The agreement was never formally signed. But both sides performed under its terms – and Kromberg & Schubert itself acknowledged in a 4th September 2026 letter that an agreement had come into effect and the parties were bound by its terms.

Boniface Lapologang Molemele, DC Tours’ finance director, said in a founding affidavit that the company committed substantial resources to the three-year arrangement on the strength of the contract award and mobilization authorization.

Then, on Sept. 1, Kromberg & Schubert delivered its cancellation notice. It did not identify any particular breach, Molemele said. It did not afford DC Tours any opportunity to cure the alleged defect. And it did not invoke Clause 14’s dispute-resolution mechanism – a prescribed process of engagement, escalation and remediation required before a breach-based termination.

DC Tours rejected the termination on 3rd September 2026, denied any breach, declared a formal dispute and invoked Clause 14.

The next day, Kromberg & Schubert changed course. The breach reference had been “erroneous,” the company wrote. The termination was actually for convenience, not for breach. Still, it maintained that the original 1st September 2026 notice remained effective, extending the termination date to 5th October 2026.

That reversal sits at the center of the legal clash. Under the agreement, a breach-based termination triggers Clause 14’s dispute-resolution process, steps Kromberg & Schubert never took. A convenience termination under Clause 13 requires 90 days’ written notice – not the 30 days the company’s original notice provided.

“The Respondent cannot, in an attempt to avoid the consequences of the breach-based termination requirements, approbate and reprobate by relying upon the original notice while simultaneously disavowing the basis upon which that notice was issued,” Molemele argued.

The stakes are considerable. DC Tours employs 106 people – drivers, supervisors and operations staff – in connection with the Kromberg & Schubert contract. Its fleet of 25 buses and minibuses was acquired and maintained specifically for the engagement. Termination would cost roughly P14 million in annual revenue and render the dedicated fleet commercially unviable, Molemele said. The consequences would cascade: mass retrenchments, vehicle-financing defaults and reputational damage that would hinder future contract bids.

No damages award pursued over years of litigation, he argued, could compensate for the loss of a going concern. The harm is irreparable, and no other satisfactory remedy exists – two of the four requirements for the interim interdict DC Tours is seeking.

Kromberg & Schubert Botswana is a subsidiary of Kromberg & Schubert, a German multinational headquartered in Coburg that manufactures wire harnesses for the global automotive industry. The dispute arrives amid growing scrutiny in Botswana over how foreign-owned companies treat local suppliers. While the country has long pursued foreign direct investment, policymakers and labor advocates have pushed for stronger safeguards for small and midsize service firms when multinationals restructure their supply chains.

Transportation contracts are a particular flashpoint: a single lost contract can ripple through a local company’s workforce, its lenders and the communities its employees call home.

The High Court must first decide whether the matter is urgent enough for expedited hearings. If the interim interdict is granted, Kromberg & Schubert would be barred from implementing the termination while DC Tours pursues a substantive claim asking the court to declare the termination wrongful and set it aside. The respondent was expected to file a notice of opposition in two days and three days to file an answering affidavit.

Kromberg & Schubert Botswana did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

For DC Tours, the fight is about survival. “To permit the Respondent to walk away from its contractual obligations on a shifting and contradictory basis,” Molemele said, “would render those commitments worthless and the contractual protections meaningless.”

The court’s ruling will speak not only to the rights of two companies in a commercial dispute but to the enforceability of contract law in an economy where a multinational’s preferences can feel, to a local supplier, like the weight of the world.

The post Local transport firm asks Court to block contract termination by German-owned manufacturer appeared first on Weekend Post.