S v Malumo and Others (14) (32 of 2001) [2011] NAHC 345 (21 November 2011)

S v Malumo and Others (14) (32 of 2001) [2011] NAHC 345 (21 November 2011)

The objection is overruled because the evidence in question does not amount to self-corroboration or the State impeaching its own witness under Section 204(1), and the Defence retains the tool of cross-examination to challenge credibility.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 345
Parties
Prosecution: The State; Defendant: Calvin Liseli Malumo & 111 Others
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
21 November 2011
Case Number
32 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Objection Ruling
Outcome
objection overruled
Legal Topics
Impeachment of Witness, Self Corroboration, Cross Examination, Section 204(1) Criminal Procedure Act
Source Language
English
Criminal Procedure Impeachment of Witness Self Corroboration Cross Examination Section 204(1) Criminal Procedure Act

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Prosecution

Calvin Liseli Malumo & 111 Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Objection Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a police officer can testify about what a previous witness told him without amounting to self-corroboration or the State impeaching its own witness under Section 204(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The objection is overruled because the evidence in question does not amount to self-corroboration or the State impeaching its own witness under Section 204(1), and the Defence retains the tool of cross-examination to challenge credibility.

Court Disposition

objection overruled