Lizazi and Another v The State (CA 23 of 2015) [2020] NAHCMD 91 (13 March 2020)
The absence of the cross-examination of a material witness (Inspector General Ndeitunga) is a material lacuna in the record, rendering it inadequate for objective appellate review; therefore, the convictions and sentences cannot stand.
- Citation
- [2020] NAHCMD 91
- Parties
- First Appellant: Alex Mutakalimo Lizazi; Second Appellant: Susanna Shangelo Hamata; Respondent: The State
- Court
- High Court Main Division
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 2020
- Case Number
- CA 23 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Procedure, Incomplete Record, Anti Corruption Act, Conviction and Sentence, Reconstruction of Record
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alex Mutakalimo Lizazi
First Appellant
Susanna Shangelo Hamata
Second Appellant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the absence of cross-examination of a material witness renders the record inadequate for appeal adjudication
- 2 Whether the missing portion of the record is material to the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The absence of the cross-examination of a material witness (Inspector General Ndeitunga) is a material lacuna in the record, rendering it inadequate for objective appellate review; therefore, the convictions and sentences cannot stand.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside.
Orders
- The appeal succeeds.
- The convictions and sentences are set aside.
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