Namibia Case Law

Amupanda v Minister of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2021/02075)

Amupanda v Minister of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2021/02075) [2023] NAHCMD 547 (5 September 2023)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2021/02075

The plaintiff satisfied the first two requirements for a protective costs order (public importance and public interest), but failed to fully disclose his financial position as required by rule 20(1)(c). Without proper financial disclosure, the court cannot determine if it is fair and just to grant the order or impose conditions. Leave is granted to supplement papers for proper assessment.

Source excerpt

• Protective costs orders
• Public interest litigation
• Rule 20
• Costs in civil litigation

Read case analysis

Zhong Mei Engineering Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v Namibia Revenue Agency and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV-2023/00325)

Zhong Mei Engineering Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v Namibia Revenue Agency and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV-2023/00325) [2023] NAHCMD 513 (18 August 2023)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV-2023/00325

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief as the deduction of funds by Standard Bank as agent for NAMRA was lawful under s 91 of the Income Tax Act, and the 'pay now argue later' principle applies in the public interest. The court found no basis to order the return of funds pending review.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of payment agent
• Tax recovery procedures
• Judicial review of administrative action
• Urgency in motion proceedings
• Pay now argue later principle
• Ultra vires challenge

Read case analysis

Haufiku v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 3665 of 2021)

Haufiku v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 3665 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 689 (19 December 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 3665 of 2021

The High Court found a correctional officer unlawfully assaulted an inmate with a cell burglar door, held the State vicariously liable, and awarded N$50,000.

• Assault
• Vicarious liability
• Damages for pain and suffering
• Contumelia
• Bodily integrity
• Vicarious-liability

Read case analysis

Veira v Prosecutor General and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 315 of 2021)

Veira v Prosecutor General and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 315 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 659 (6 December 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 315 of 2021

The phrase 'but is not limited to' in section 2(2) of the Combatting of Rape Act 8 of 2000 is not vague or unconstitutional; it is designedly broad to address the diverse and unpredictable forms of coercive circumstances in rape cases. The applicant was provided with sufficient particulars and disclosure to prepare a defence, and procedural safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary prosecution. The applicant lacks standing to challenge section 2(2)(c) as he was not charged under that provision.

Source excerpt

• Vagueness doctrine
• Fair trial rights
• Statutory interpretation
• Sexual offences
• Locus standi

Read case analysis

Vincent & Tiffany Construction CC v Deputy Governor of the Bank of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 312 of 2021)

Vincent & Tiffany Construction CC v Deputy Governor of the Bank of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 312 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 655 (2 December 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 312 of 2021

The Deputy Governor of the Bank of Namibia lacked authority, power, capacity, competence and jurisdiction to issue the Notice and Order of Forfeiture on 5 July 2021; the Notice and Order are invalid and set aside. Regulations 22A and 22B are applicable and valid in Namibia, but the forfeiture decision was not lawfully made.

Source excerpt

• Exchange control
• Delegation of authority
• Forfeiture of funds
• Applicability of foreign regulations
• Constitutional consistency

Read case analysis

S v Gustavo (SA 58 of 2022)

S v Gustavo (SA 58 of 2022) [2022] NASC 45 (2 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 58 of 2022

The High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly assess the impact of the new facts advanced by the respondent, by relying on an unenforceable and unspecified GPS monitoring condition, and by not giving due weight to the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the State's case, and the public interest. The discretion to grant bail was exercised on wrong principles and must be set aside.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• Discretion of court
• Public interest
• Economic crimes
• Corruption
• Racketeering

Read case analysis

Mwilima v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration and Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 260 of 2021)

Mwilima v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration and Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 260 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 618 (14 November 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 260 of 2021

Regulation 274 is ultra vires section 109 read with section 132 of the Correctional Service Act 9 of 2012 because it introduces substantive requirements, specifically the 'imminent death' criterion, not contemplated by the Act. The Act only requires that an inmate be suffering from a dangerous, infectious, or contagious disease, or that continued incarceration is detrimental to health on physical grounds. The Minister's power to make regulations does not extend to adding substantive jurisdictional requirements beyond those in the Act.

Source excerpt

• Ultra vires
• Delegated legislation
• Medical parole
• Correctional services
• Doctrine of legality

Read case analysis

Sheehama v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration Safety and Security (HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-DEL 283 of 2020)

Sheehama v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration Safety and Security (HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-DEL 283 of 2020) [2022] NAHCNLD 118 (4 November 2022)

Court

Northern Local Division

Case number

HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-DEL 283 of 2020

The High Court granted absolution from the instance in a malicious prosecution claim, finding no prima facie case and no proved damages.

• Malicious prosecution
• Damages
• Unlawful arrest
• Burden of proof
• Animus injuriandi
• Reasonable and probable cause

Read case analysis

Gibeon Village Council v Development Bank of Namibia (SA 40 of 2020)

Gibeon Village Council v Development Bank of Namibia (SA 40 of 2020) [2022] NASC 32 (21 October 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 40 of 2020

Rule 103(1)(a) applies to default judgments, but the appellant failed to establish that the judgment was erroneously sought or granted, as the evidence of payments due was not disputed and the appellant breached the cession agreement. The granting of default judgment in chambers did not violate Art 12 or s 13, as the appellant's rights were not engaged when it failed to participate, and the rescission application was heard in open court.

Source excerpt

• Default judgment
• Rescission of judgment
• Open court principle
• Right to fair trial
• Cession agreement
• Interest and costs orders

Read case analysis

David v Minister of Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5047 of 2019)

David v Minister of Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5047 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 556 (14 October 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5047 of 2019

The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion based on the plaintiffs' conduct, unexplained possession of a television, presence of housebreaking implements, and matching shoe prints. The arrest and detention were lawful under Section 40(1) and Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The plaintiffs failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities. The prosecution was not malicious as it flowed from a lawful arrest and detention.

Source excerpt

• Unlawful arrest
• Unlawful detention
• Malicious prosecution
• Reasonable suspicion
• Damages
• Police powers

Read case analysis