Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Namibia decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
S v Pendapala (CR 45 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 94 (26 September 2022)
On automatic review, the High Court substituted a conviction of common assault for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and varied the sentences.
Standic BV v Petroholland Holding (Pty) Ltd (SA 9 of 2020) [2022] NASC 30 (23 September 2022)
Supreme Court of Namibia upheld enforcement of a Dutch default judgment, finding the High Court erred on authentication, finality, and issues not raised by the parties.
Strauss v Strauss (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 349 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 500 (23 September 2022)
The applicant failed to provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that the matter was urgent or that he would not receive substantial redress in due course. The urgency was not established, and no compelling reason was given for eviction or interdict on an urgent basis. The application was struck for lack of urgency.
Source excerpt
Helios Oryx Limited v Elisenheim Property Development Company (Pty) Ltd (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 2288 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 499 (23 September 2022)
The defendant failed to make out a case for the relief sought in its Notice of Motion. The plaintiff, through its director, provided discovery affidavits stating under oath that the documents do not exist or are not in its possession or control. The defendant did not provide sufficient grounds to go behind the discovery affidavit or to show mala fides. The documents sought are either not in the plaintiff's possession, do not exist, or are not relevant. The application to compel discovery is dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
S v Engelbrecht (CR 101 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 504 (23 September 2022)
The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence for possession of dependence-producing substances, finding the matter was wrongly dealt with under section 112(1)(a) and that the sentence was disproportionate.
Paulus v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 62 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 498 (23 September 2022)
The High Court allowed a bail appeal, holding the magistrate wrongly refused to hear evidence on alleged new facts before ruling on the application.
Leonard v Namibia Ports Authority (Pty) Ltd (HC-MD-LAB-APP-AAA 74 of 2020) [2022] NALCMD 52 (23 September 2022)
The applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success, as the union was not entitled to represent them and ratification occurred after the limitation period. No other court would come to a different conclusion than the arbitrator.
Source excerpt
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.
Source excerpt
Amalu v Smith (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 2083 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 490 (20 September 2022)
A landlord’s damages claim under a lease failed for lack of proof of breach, causation, and quantum. Some rent-related claims were also dismissed.
Madisia v Edgars Stores Namibia t/a Jet Stores Walvis Bay (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2636 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 488 (16 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed a store-slip personal injury claim, finding the plaintiff did not prove a wet floor, a fall, or causation for her medical condition.
Explore more
