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 Vathingila (CR 21 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 46 (26 April 2022)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside convictions and sentences because the accused’s legal aid application was not properly addressed and the record was defective.
Shoprite Namibia (Pty) Ltd v Namibia Food and Allied Workers Union and Others (SA 1 of 2021; SCR 1 of 2021) [2022] NASC 15 (26 April 2022)
The Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant urgent interim relief as a dispute was pending under chapter 8 of the Labour Act. Section 76(3) must be interpreted strictly; Shoprite did not require (compel) non-striking, seasonal, or managerial employees to perform the work of striking employees, and the Union failed to establish a breach of s 76(3) or the strike rules. The contempt proceedings before the Labour Court were not irregular; Shoprite was afforded an adequate opportunity to answer the allegations but elected not to do so. The appeal is upheld, the Labour Court's orders are set aside,…
Source excerpt
S v Gemeng and Another (CC 20 of 2016) [2022] NAHCMD 214 (26 April 2022)
The High Court of Namibia imposed 18-year sentences on two accused convicted of rape, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the mandatory minimum.
S v Lipuleni and Others (CR 22 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 47 (26 April 2022)
The review court found that while the convictions were proper, the conditions of suspended sentences and community service orders were incomplete, vague, and lacked specificity. The court held that such orders must be clear and detailed to comply with section 297(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court corrected the sentencing orders to specify the nature, place, supervision, and timing of community service, and rectified errors in the citation of regulations, finding no prejudice to the accused.
Source excerpt
Tulela Processing Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Weatherly Mining Namibia Ltd and Another (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 94 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 211 (22 April 2022)
The plaintiff's withdrawal of the action without tendering costs was unjustified as there were no sound reasons to deprive the defendants of their costs. The defendants' review of the Competition Commission's approval was within their rights and not a breach of the cooperation clause. The plaintiff's case was weak, and its failure to challenge the Minister's decision further demonstrated this. Costs are awarded to the defendants on the ordinary scale, not punitive.
Source excerpt
The Municipal Council for the Municipality of Windhoek v Bruni N.O and Others (I 2481 of 2013) [2022] NAHCMD 207 (22 April 2022)
The High Court deferred a late amendment to the plaintiff’s replication to be determined with the merits at trial and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs.
Teofelus v S (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 14 of 2020) [2022] NAHCNLD 44 (22 April 2022)
The High Court set aside a robbery conviction and sentence after finding a grave trial irregularity: the accused was allowed to speak without being sworn in.
Hunibeb v The Commissioner General Raphael Hamunyela of the Namibian Correctional Service (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 210 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 210 (21 April 2022)
The applicant's founding affidavit did not contain the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action, and much of the relief sought was incompetent or incomprehensible. The application was dismissed on this basis.
Source excerpt
Moussa v Amwaama and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 1922 of 2018) [2022] NAHCMD 205 (21 April 2022)
The High Court granted condonation and leave for a plaintiff to file an alternative expert report after the original expert became medically unfit to testify.
Desmond Howard N.O and Another v Archie Graham and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 1519 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 204 (20 April 2022)
The High Court granted leave to file a rejoinder, condoned non-compliance as necessary, and ordered the defendants to pay the application costs.
Explore more
