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
Goike v Von Zelewski (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 1099 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 637 (22 November 2022)
The High Court dismissed a claim over allegedly removed fixtures, holding the plaintiff was neither the owner nor a bona fide possessor when the items were removed.
Smith v Schiefer (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4887 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 638 (22 November 2022)
The High Court of Namibia dismissed the defendant’s application to amend the pre-trial order to add witnesses and a photo plan, awarding costs.
Swakop Uranium (Pty) Ltd v McLaren Ian Robert and Another (SA 64 of 2020) [2022] NASC 41 (21 November 2022)
Because the legislature did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude action proceedings under s 64(1) of the Close Corporations Act, both action and motion proceedings are permissible avenues for seeking relief; the High Court erred in holding otherwise.
Source excerpt
Heritage Health Medical Aid Fund v Registrar of Medical Aid Funds (SA 77 of 2020) [2022] NASC 42 (21 November 2022)
The Supreme Court of Namibia partly upheld Heritage Health’s appeal, setting aside a directive over the self-funding gap because costs were not addressed.
S v Bumes (CC 1 of 2020) [2022] NAHCNLD 123 (18 November 2022)
Bail on new facts was refused where the applicants’ changed circumstances were not truly new or were insufficient to displace the earlier refusal.
Trendy Designs and Consulting Engineers CC v G Marwa Land Surveyors CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 2518 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 628 (17 November 2022)
The High Court granted absolution from the instance in a claim for engineering fees, finding the plaintiff had not proved the defendant close corporation was party to the oral agreement.
Global Diamonds Valuators Namibia (Pty) Ltd v Central Procurement Board of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 496 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 631 (17 November 2022)
The court held that not all respondents to a procurement review were properly served and issued a rule nisi before hearing the merits.
MIS Hamza Construction v Britz (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 610 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 623 (16 November 2022)
The plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case for unjust enrichment or entitlement to the return of property; they did not prove the amounts claimed or that the defendant was unjustly enriched at their expense. The evidence showed the truck and tanks were not in the defendant's possession, and the plaintiffs could not explain the calculation of the claimed amount. Therefore, no reasonable court could find for the plaintiffs, and absolution from the instance was granted.
Source excerpt
Stephanus v Kuutondokwa (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 364 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 622 (16 November 2022)
The High Court granted absolution from the instance after the plaintiff failed to show a legal right or interest supporting declaratory relief about the making of a will.
Seawork Fish Processors (Pty) Ltd v Green Rose Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 434 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 624 (16 November 2022)
The applicant failed to explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and the reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course. The urgency was self-created, and the requirements of rule 73(4) were not satisfied. The application was refused for lack of urgency.
Source excerpt
Explore more
