S v Malumo and Others (4) (CC 32 of 2001) [2007] NAHC 89 (16 July 2007)
The State is not recalling the witness in terms of section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act but is calling the witness afresh to testify on a distinct issue in the trial-within-a-trial. The subject matter is unrelated to the main trial testimony, so the prior ruling stands.
- Citation
- [2007] NAHC 89
- Parties
- Applicant: Calvin Liseli Malumo & 118 Others; Respondent: The State
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Judgment Date
- 16 July 2007
- Case Number
- CC 32 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Trial Within a Trial Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- application to revisit ruling refused; prior ruling stands
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Recalling Witnesses, Trial Within a Trial, Section 167 Criminal Procedure Act
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Calvin Liseli Malumo & 118 Others
Applicant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Within a Trial Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 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 Whether the Court should revisit its earlier ruling allowing the State to call the witness
Ratio Decidendi
The State is not recalling the witness in terms of section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act but is calling the witness afresh to testify on a distinct issue in the trial-within-a-trial. The subject matter is unrelated to the main trial testimony, so the prior ruling stands.
Court Disposition
application to revisit ruling refused; prior ruling stands
Orders
- State allowed to call Lubinda Mbumwae as a witness in the trial-within-a-trial
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment