Former Air Botswana captain denies liability over cancelled Jo’burg flight
Mpho Mokwape | Monday July 13, 2026 06:00
He filed a memorandum of appearance to defend the lawsuit in the High Court, rejecting the state-owned airline's claim that he is liable for P249, 355.39 in damages allegedly arising from his refusal to operate a flight on June 21, 2026.
The legal dispute reportedly stems from the captain's departure from the airline after submitting his resignation letter. Air Botswana alleges that his failure to operate what it describes as his final rostered Johannesburg flight resulted in the cancellation of services, forcing the airline to rebook passengers, pay for hotel accommodation and absorb lost ticket revenue. According to court papers filed by the airline, Gaborakanelwe resigned on May 11 and gave the required one month's notice, with his employment expected to end on June 14. The airline claims it later asked him to extend his notice period by one week because of a shortage of flight crew and says he agreed to remain until June 21.
Air Botswana further alleges that the captain flew four scheduled sectors on June 21 before refusing to operate flights BOT207 and BOT208 between Gaborone and Johannesburg. 'As a result of the defendant's refusal, the plaintiff was unable, within the required operational window, to secure replacement crew for flights BOT207 and BOT208. The plaintiff was consequently compelled to cancel and/or re-protect the passengers booked on the said sectors,' Air Botswana states in its particulars of claim.
The airline says affected passengers were rebooked on Airlink and South African Airways, while hotel accommodation was arranged where necessary. As a result, iIt is seeking P249,355.39 together with interest and legal costs. However, in his defence, Gaborakanelwe disputes nearly every aspect of the airline's claim. He denies entering into any agreement to extend his contractual notice period beyond June 14, arguing that there was never a written and signed agreement varying the terms of his employment contract. 'The defendant denies having entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the extension of his notice period as alleged,' the defence states. According to the filing, any decision to extend the notice period was made unilaterally by Air Botswana despite the captain's refusal to accept it. The defence further argues that the airline relied on a flight operations roster that was never signed by the captain.
'As stated in the flight operation roster, the defendant was enjoined to read and sign off such roster to demonstrate his acceptance. To the extent that he has not signed it and made a declaration of compliance with company policy, such roster bears no legal or factual validity,' the court papers state. The former captain also points to provisions contained in his employment contract, which, according to the defence, required any amendment or variation to be reduced to writing and signed by both parties before it could take effect. The defence argues that previous changes to his employment, including promotions and salary increases, had always been documented and signed by both sides. 'At no point material to the present matter did the plaintiff and defendant enter into an agreement and sign for it, to vary or extend the contractually agreed notice period of thirty days,' the court documents state.
The court papers also argue that Air Botswana accepted his resignation in writing and never produced a subsequent written agreement extending his employment. Gaborakanelwe further argues that even if he continued assisting the airline after his original notice period expired, doing so did not amount to waiving his contractual rights. His defence cites a non-waiver clause in the employment contract, arguing that a failure by either party to enforce contractual provisions does not remove their legal rights under the agreement. Beyond the contractual issues, the former captain says his decision not to operate the disputed flight was based on aviation safety requirements rather than misconduct. He argues that operating the Johannesburg service would have breached Air Botswana's Operations Manual, which was approved by the Civil Aviation Authority Botswana. According to the defence, both the airline and its pilots have a duty to ensure that flight crew are adequately rested, have not exceeded permissible flying hours and are free from fatigue before operating aircraft. The filing says responsibility for managing pilot fatigue also rests with the Chief Pilot. 'The operations manual places both the plaintiff and the pilot under an obligation to ensure that a pilot operating a flight on duty has had adequate rest, has not exceeded flight hours and is not fatigued in any manner,' the defence argues. Gaborakanelwe says that after operating several consecutive flights, he conducted the required personal fitness assessment known in aviation as the 'I AM SAFE' checklist. The checklist requires pilots to assess whether they are medically, mentally and physically fit to fly before accepting flight duties.
According to the defence, the assessment led him to conclude that he was suffering from fatigue and distress and was therefore not fit to safely operate another flight. The filing says he informed Air Botswana that he was unable to undertake further flight operations and expressly rejected any request to operate the Johannesburg service. 'Having conducted the I AM SAFE exercise, the defendant concluded that he was fatigued and in distress,' his defence states.
The former captain argues that even if the court were to find that an agreement existed requiring him to remain on duty, which he denies, he could not lawfully accept an assignment that compromised aviation safety. 'To that extent, the defendant denies the existence of any agreement, particularly an agreement that would put the safety of innocent members of the public at risk,' the filing states. He also argues that any operational failures by the airline, including the inability to manage pilot fatigue or secure replacement crew, cannot be attributed to him.
The defence further denies that Air Botswana suffered the damages it claims or that any losses were caused by his conduct. 'The defendant denies that the plaintiff has suffered any damages as alleged, or that any alleged harm is attributable to the conduct of the defendant,' the court papers state. In his filings, Gaborakanelwe asks the High Court to dismiss the action with costs on the attorney and client scale. He also reserves the right to institute a counterclaim and to raise further legal objections, including an exception or special plea, as the case progresses. The lawsuit had previously revealed Air Botswana's concern that the former captain might already have taken up employment in the Democratic Republic of Congo and could leave Botswana before legal papers were served.
The airline informed its attorneys that prompt filing and service of the summons were necessary because Gaborakanelwe was believed to be working outside Botswana. The case comes as Air Botswana continues to face challenges in retaining experienced flight crew. The High Court will now determine whether the airline can prove that a legally binding agreement extended the captain's notice period and whether his refusal to operate the flight amounted to a breach of contract that caused the losses claimed by the airline.