S v Malumo and Others (4) (CC 32 of 2001) [2007] NAHC 89 (16 July 2007)

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.

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 Admissibility of Evidence

  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 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