S v Titus and Others (Reasons) (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 42 of 2020) [2021] NAHCNLD 50 (31 May 2021)

S v Titus and Others (Reasons) (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 42 of 2020) [2021] NAHCNLD 50 (31 May 2021)

Both appellants filed their notices of appeal late with the clerk of court. First appellant's explanation for the delay was accepted but he failed to show reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Second appellant did not file an application for condonation, which is mandatory. Without condonation, there is no appeal to consider. The respondent's point in limine is upheld and both appeals are struck from the roll.

Citation
[2021] NAHCNLD 50
Parties
1st Appellant: Julius Shimweefeleni Titus; 2nd Appellant: Ericky Nanghonga; 3rd Appellant: Gerson Nangonya; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Local Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
31 May 2021
Case Number
HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 42 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Condonation and Striking Out Appeal
Outcome
Appeals struck from the roll; application for condonation refused.
Legal Topics
Late Filing of Notice of Appeal, Condonation, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Late Filing of Notice of Appeal Condonation Appeal Procedure Sentencing

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Shimweefeleni Titus

1st Appellant

Ericky Nanghonga

2nd Appellant

Gerson Nangonya

3rd Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Condonation and Striking Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the notice of appeal can be condoned
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal
  3. 3 Whether an application for condonation is mandatory for late appeals

Ratio Decidendi

Both appellants filed their notices of appeal late with the clerk of court. First appellant's explanation for the delay was accepted but he failed to show reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Second appellant did not file an application for condonation, which is mandatory. Without condonation, there is no appeal to consider. The respondent's point in limine is upheld and both appeals are struck from the roll.

Court Disposition

Appeals struck from the roll; application for condonation refused.

Orders

  • The Respondent’s point in limine is upheld.
  • The first appellant's application for condonation is refused.