Likoro v S (SA 19 of 2018) [2022] NASC 10 (12 April 2022)

Likoro v S (SA 19 of 2018) [2022] NASC 10 (12 April 2022)

The High Court's March 2018 order granting leave to appeal was a grave irregularity as it purported to overrule its own previous order (December 2017), offending the principles of functus officio and res judicata. The appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court, as the correct procedure was a direct appeal against refusal of condonation. The March 2018 order, the notice of appeal, and the Supreme Court proceedings were all vitiated by these irregularities and must be set aside.

Citation
[2022] NASC 10
Parties
Appellant: Vincent Kapumburu Likoro; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Case Number
SA 19 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Review of High Court Proceedings Under S 16 Supreme Court Act
Outcome
March 2018 judgment and order set aside as irregular; notice of appeal set aside; Supreme Court proceedings struck from roll.
Legal Topics
Condonation, Functus Officio, Res Judicata, Jurisdiction, Irregularity in Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Condonation Functus Officio Res Judicata Jurisdiction Irregularity in Proceedings

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

Parties

Vincent Kapumburu Likoro

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Review of High Court Proceedings Under S 16 Supreme Court Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's March 2018 judgment granting leave to appeal constituted an irregularity
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal filed on 23 April 2018 was irregular
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court proceedings of 14 October 2019 should be struck from the roll

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's March 2018 order granting leave to appeal was a grave irregularity as it purported to overrule its own previous order (December 2017), offending the principles of functus officio and res judicata. The appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court, as the correct procedure was a direct appeal against refusal of condonation. The March 2018 order, the notice of appeal, and the Supreme Court proceedings were all vitiated by these irregularities and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

March 2018 judgment and order set aside as irregular; notice of appeal set aside; Supreme Court proceedings struck from roll.

Orders

  • The judgment and order of 20 March 2018 are reviewed and set aside.
  • The notice of appeal filed by the appellant on 23 April 2018 is reviewed and set aside.