S v Malumo and Others (3) (CC 32 of 2001) [2007] NAHC 90 (22 June 2007)

S v Malumo and Others (3) (CC 32 of 2001) [2007] NAHC 90 (22 June 2007)

The State is not recalling the witness under section 167 of Act 51 of 1977 but is calling the witness afresh to testify in a trial-within-a-trial on a distinct and unrelated subject matter. Therefore, the previous ruling allowing the witness to testify stands, and there is no basis to reconsider it.

Citation
[2007] NAHC 90
Parties
Applicant: Calvin Liseli Malumo & 118 Others; Respondent: The State
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
22 June 2007
Case Number
CC 32 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Within a Trial (ruling on Admissibility of Evidence)
Outcome
Application to revisit previous ruling dismissed; previous ruling allowing witness to testify stands.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Recalling Witnesses, Trial Within a Trial, Section 167 Criminal Procedure Act
Source Language
English
Criminal Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Recalling Witnesses Trial Within a Trial Section 167 Criminal Procedure Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calvin Liseli Malumo & 118 Others

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Within a Trial (ruling on Admissibility of Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State is recalling a witness under section 167 of Act 51 of 1977 or calling the witness afresh in a trial-within-a-trial
  2. 2 Whether the previous ruling allowing the witness to testify should be reconsidered

Ratio Decidendi

The State is not recalling the witness under section 167 of Act 51 of 1977 but is calling the witness afresh to testify in a trial-within-a-trial on a distinct and unrelated subject matter. Therefore, the previous ruling allowing the witness to testify stands, and there is no basis to reconsider it.

Court Disposition

Application to revisit previous ruling dismissed; previous ruling allowing witness to testify stands.