S v Khumalo (3 of 1991) [1991] NAHC 3 (5 April 1991)

S v Khumalo (3 of 1991) [1991] NAHC 3 (5 April 1991)

A trial court is not entitled to deliver a verdict in respect of an accused who was absent during the proceedings; a final verdict can only be passed when the absent accused is again brought before the court and the trial is concluded in his presence.

Citation
[1991] NAHC 3
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Daniel Khumalo
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
5 April 1991
Case Number
3 of 1991
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Reserved Question of Law
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal of accused no. 2 set aside; new proceedings permitted.
Legal Topics
Trial in Absence of Accused, Separation of Trials, Acquittal in Absence, Section 159 and 160 Criminal Procedure Act
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Trial in Absence of Accused Separation of Trials Acquittal in Absence Section 159 and 160 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Daniel Khumalo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Reserved Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may deliver a verdict in respect of an accused in his absence where proceedings for present accused are concluded under Section 160(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Ratio Decidendi

A trial court is not entitled to deliver a verdict in respect of an accused who was absent during the proceedings; a final verdict can only be passed when the absent accused is again brought before the court and the trial is concluded in his presence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal of accused no. 2 set aside; new proceedings permitted.

Orders

  • The acquittal of accused no. 2 is set aside.
  • Criminal proceedings in respect of the same offence may again be instituted against accused no. 2.