Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Namibia decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Tjiriange v Minister of Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5034 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 629 (11 November 2022)
The High Court of Namibia dismissed a prisoner's delict claim for assault, finding he did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the alleged assault occurred.
Owoses v Government of the Republic of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 1723 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 484 (15 September 2022)
Plaintiff suffered severe physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety, as a result of an unprovoked assault by law enforcement officers. The quantum of damages must reflect the seriousness of the assault and its consequences, guided by comparative awards and legal principles. Plaintiff's claim of N$145,000 is reasonable and awarded.
Source excerpt
Angula v Tjaronda (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5338 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 364 (25 July 2022)
The High Court held that social media posts by the defendant were false and defamatory of the plaintiff, awarding damages, interest, costs, and an apology order.
Mulike v Minister of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5065 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 244 (13 June 2022)
Plaintiff's evidence, corroborated by witness, established on balance of probabilities that he was assaulted by Sgt Murumendu, resulting in physical injury and emotional trauma. Defendants' evidence was inconsistent and contradicted. The assault was unprovoked and occurred during the course and scope of employment. Plaintiff entitled to damages.
Source excerpt
Government of Republic of Namibia (Ministry of Safety and Security) v Lazarus (SA 54 of 2017) [2021] NASC 26 (9 September 2021)
The only issue in dispute at trial was quantum, as liability for unlawful arrest, detention, and impounding of the vehicle was conceded. The respondent proved damages for unlawful arrest and the loss of N$27,000, but failed to prove loss of profit due to lack of supporting evidence. The award for damages for unlawful arrest and loss of cash was appropriate and confirmed; absolution from the instance was ordered for the loss of profit claim.
Source excerpt
Minister of Safety and Security v Mwamba (SA 20 of 2018) [2021] NASC 54 (9 September 2021)
The Prosecutor-General had reasonable and probable cause, both objectively and subjectively, to initiate and continue the prosecution against the respondent based on sworn witness statements and available evidence. There was no evidence of malice or improper motive in either the initiation or continuation of the prosecution. The High Court erred by conflating the standard for malicious prosecution with the criminal standard of proof and by finding for the respondent on the alternative claim. The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof for malicious prosecution or malicious continua…
Source excerpt
Midway Recovery and Transport CC v Heigauseb (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 5125 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 604 (30 July 2021)
The court found that the plaintiff’s driver, Mr. Goliath, failed to keep a proper lookout and reversed onto the road without due regard for other road users, creating a sudden emergency for the defendant. The defendant’s version was found more probable, and his actions were consistent with those of a reasonable driver in the circumstances. The collision was caused solely by the negligence of the plaintiff’s driver, with no contributory negligence on the part of the defendant.
Source excerpt
Sheehama v Nehunga (SA 13 of 2019) [2021] NASC 1 (7 April 2021)
Both parties were equally negligent in causing the collision; appellant was negligent in overtaking without proper warning at a T-junction, and respondent was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout before turning right. Subrogation was irrelevant to the proceedings and did not need to be pleaded. Appellant failed to prove the quantum of his damages except for tow-in costs.
Source excerpt
Gawab v Minister of Health & Social Services and Another (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 133 of 2018) [2021] NAHCMD 146 (26 February 2021)
High Court motor vehicle collision case apportioning liability 60/40, finding negligence by both drivers and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim.
Haakuria v Kangueehi [2020] NAHCMD 330 (4 August 2020)
Rear-end collision case where the High Court found the defendant negligent and liable for damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle, dismissing the third-party claim.
Explore more
