Nakale and Others v Public Prosecutor, Litubezi and Another (331 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 337 (21 December 2012)

Nakale and Others v Public Prosecutor, Litubezi and Another (331 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 337 (21 December 2012)

The applicants failed to demonstrate the required urgency and did not show that they could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course, as alternative remedies were available and the application was delayed.

Citation
[2012] NAHC 337
Parties
Applicant: Willem Nakale; Applicant: Naftali Hamutenya; Applicant: Mandume Edward; Applicant: Armas Hango; Applicant: Petrus Shovaleka; Respondent: The Public Prosecutor, Mr Litubezi; Respondent: The Prosecutor-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Case Number
331 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ruling on Urgency and Admissibility
Outcome
Application struck from the roll
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Bail, Disclosure of Evidence, Delay in Trial, Alternative Remedies
Source Language
English
Criminal Procedure Urgent Applications Bail Disclosure of Evidence Delay in Trial Alternative Remedies

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

Parties

Willem Nakale

Applicant

Naftali Hamutenya

Applicant

Mandume Edward

Applicant

Armas Hango

Applicant

Petrus Shovaleka

Applicant

The Public Prosecutor, Mr Litubezi

Respondent

The Prosecutor-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ruling on Urgency and Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12)(b) of the Rules of High Court
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown they cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate the required urgency and did not show that they could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course, as alternative remedies were available and the application was delayed.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.