Prosecutor-General v Gustavo & Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA 429 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 497 (22 September 2022)

Prosecutor-General v Gustavo & Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA 429 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 497 (22 September 2022)

The refusal to refer the matter to oral evidence is not appealable as it does not meet the requirements of finality, definitiveness, or substantial disposition of relief. Even if appealable, the applicants have not shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The Prosecutor-General's explanations are reasonable, and the right to cross-examination is not absolute at this interlocutory stage.

Citation
[2022] NAHCMD 497
Parties
Applicant: Esja Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mermaria Seafood Namibia (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Saga Seafood (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Heinaste Investment Namibia (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Saga Investment (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Esja Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Prosecutor-General; Respondent: Ricardo Jorge Gustavo; Respondent: Tamson Tangeni Hatuikulipi; Respondent: James Nependa Hatuikulipi; Respondent: Sackeus Edwards Twelityaamena Shanghala; Respondent: Bernard Martin Esau; Respondent: Pius Natangwe Mwatelulo; Respondent: Namgomar Pesca (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Erongo Clearing and Forwarding CC; Respondent: JTH Trading CC; Respondent: Greyguard Investment CC; Respondent: Otuafika Logistics CC; Respondent: Otuafika Investment CC; Respondent: Fitty Entertainment CC; Respondent: Trustees of Cambarada Trust; Respondent: Olea Investment Number Nine CC; Respondent: Trustees of Omholo Trust; Respondent: Ndapandula Johanna Hatuikulipi; Respondent: Swamma Esau; Respondent: Al Investment No Five CC; Respondent: Oholo Trading CC; Respondent: Gwaaniilonga Investment (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
22 September 2022
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-MOT-POCA 429 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (poca) / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Referral to Oral Evidence, Restraint Orders, Right to Cross Examination
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Criminal Asset Forfeiture Appealability of Interlocutory Orders Referral to Oral Evidence Restraint Orders Right to Cross Examination

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esja Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mermaria Seafood Namibia (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Saga Seafood (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Heinaste Investment Namibia (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Saga Investment (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Esja Investment (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Prosecutor-General

Respondent

Ricardo Jorge Gustavo

Respondent

Tamson Tangeni Hatuikulipi

Respondent

James Nependa Hatuikulipi

Respondent

Sackeus Edwards Twelityaamena Shanghala

Respondent

Bernard Martin Esau

Respondent

Pius Natangwe Mwatelulo

Respondent

Namgomar Pesca (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Erongo Clearing and Forwarding CC

Respondent

JTH Trading CC

Respondent

Greyguard Investment CC

Respondent

Otuafika Logistics CC

Respondent

Otuafika Investment CC

Respondent

Fitty Entertainment CC

Respondent

Trustees of Cambarada Trust

Respondent

Olea Investment Number Nine CC

Respondent

Trustees of Omholo Trust

Respondent

Ndapandula Johanna Hatuikulipi

Respondent

Swamma Esau

Respondent

Al Investment No Five CC

Respondent

Oholo Trading CC

Respondent

Gwaaniilonga Investment (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (poca) / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to refer a matter to oral evidence is appealable
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the refusal to refer to oral evidence and cross-examine the Prosecutor-General

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to refer the matter to oral evidence is not appealable as it does not meet the requirements of finality, definitiveness, or substantial disposition of relief. Even if appealable, the applicants have not shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The Prosecutor-General's explanations are reasonable, and the right to cross-examination is not absolute at this interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed.
  • First to sixth applicants to pay the Prosecutor-General’s costs for opposing the application for leave to appeal, jointly and severally, subject to rule 32(11).