Namibia Case Law

S v Hausiku (CC 29 of 2019)

S v Hausiku (CC 29 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 418 (17 August 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CC 29 of 2019

The accused was not under imminent attack when he killed the deceased; his claim of self-defence was rejected due to contradictions and lack of credible evidence. The accused's admissions and forensic evidence established his guilt on all counts beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's evidence was credible and corroborated by DNA and other evidence. The accused's failure to cross-examine on key points undermined his defence. The accused's version was found to be improbable and false.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Robbery with aggravating circumstances
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Driving without a licence
• Reckless or negligent driving

Read case analysis

South African Airways Soc Limited v Camm and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2479 of 2016)

South African Airways Soc Limited v Camm and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2479 of 2016) [2022] NAHCMD 103 (10 March 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 2479 of 2016

High Court of Namibia held Joseph Brinkmann jointly liable for fraudulent baggage-claim invoices and authorized a pension deduction under section 37D.

• Fraud
• Theft
• Damages
• Joint liability
• Handwriting evidence
• Pension deduction

Read case analysis

Katire v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 414 of 2020)

Katire v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 414 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 543 (23 November 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 414 of 2020

The High Court dismissed a police-assault claim after finding the plaintiff’s evidence unsafe and unsupported, with no probative medical or witness corroboration.

• Assault by police
• Burden of proof
• Evidentiary standards
• Damages for assault
• Police-assault
• Burden-of-proof

Read case analysis

CAPX Finance v Onamagongwa Trading Enterprises CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL 3632 of 2018)

CAPX Finance v Onamagongwa Trading Enterprises CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL 3632 of 2018) [2021] NAHCMD 458 (4 October 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL 3632 of 2018

The High Court found CAPX Finance failed to prove the defendant signed an irrevocable payment undertaking and rejected its estoppel argument.

• Estoppel
• Forgery
• Cession
• Pleadings
• Burden of proof
• Burden-of-proof

Read case analysis

Municipal Council for the Municipality of Swakopmund v Kandenge and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4722 of 2017)

Municipal Council for the Municipality of Swakopmund v Kandenge and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4722 of 2017) [2021] NAHCMD 446 (30 September 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4722 of 2017

The High Court of Namibia declined an application for specific discovery of a defendant’s bank statements, finding them irrelevant and disproportionate.

• Discovery
• Specific discovery
• Relevance of evidence
• Proportionality
• Misappropriation
• Damages

Read case analysis

Huang v Nevonga (SA 60 of 2019)

Huang v Nevonga (SA 60 of 2019) [2021] NASC 27 (15 July 2021)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 60 of 2019

The plaintiff placed sufficient prima facie evidence before the court to avert absolution from the instance, as the discovered bank documents were admissible under rule 28(7) and the plaintiff's testimony established payment instructions to the CC. The High Court erred in granting absolution as the threshold was met.

Source excerpt

• Absolution from the instance
• Proof of payment
• Admissibility of documentary evidence
• Case management rules

Read case analysis

Arangies and Another v Unitrans Namibia (PTY) LTD and Another (1 of 2018)

Arangies and Another v Unitrans Namibia (PTY) LTD and Another (1 of 2018) [2018] NASC 401 (27 July 2018)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

1 of 2018

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court status-hearing order for procedural irregularity, but refused leave to file late witness statements and video evidence.

• Case management
• Admissibility of evidence
• Review jurisdiction
• Audi alteram partem
• Interlocutory orders
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Van Wyk v Terence Lind t/a Auto Exec (1697 of 2015)

Van Wyk v Terence Lind t/a Auto Exec (1697 of 2015) [2017] NAHCMD 144 (17 May 2017)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

1697 of 2015

The High Court held that lay opinion evidence may be received on market value or replacement value, and dismissed the defendant’s objection.

• Opinion evidence
• Lay opinion
• Expert evidence
• Market value
• Replacement value
• Evidence

Read case analysis

JB Cooling and Refrigeration CC v Willemse t/a Windhoek Armature Winding and Others (APPEAL 76 of 2015)

JB Cooling and Refrigeration CC v Willemse t/a Windhoek Armature Winding and Others (APPEAL 76 of 2015) [2016] NAHCMD 8 (20 January 2016)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

APPEAL 76 of 2015

The Magistrate admitted and relied on inadmissible opinion evidence from non-expert witnesses, which constituted a gross irregularity under s 20(1)(d) of the High Court Act, rendering the proceedings reviewable and the judgment liable to be set aside. The applicant had authority to institute proceedings, complied with procedural rules, and did not delay unreasonably. The second respondent, having made herself a party to the merits, is liable for costs.

Source excerpt

• Locus standi
• Opinion evidence
• Review of magistrates’ court proceedings
• Costs against judicial officers

Read case analysis

S v Malumo and Others (15) (32 of 2001)

S v Malumo and Others (15) (32 of 2001) [2011] NAHC 346 (21 November 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

32 of 2001

The court found that at the time Mushabati made the statements to police officer Popyeinawa, the conspiracy was still afoot and Mushabati was a co-conspirator. Therefore, his statements were executive statements made in furtherance of the common purpose and are admissible as evidence under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

Source excerpt

• Hearsay
• Co-conspirator exception
• Admissibility of evidence

Read case analysis