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
Gawiseb v S (CA 54 of 2016) [2022] NAHCMD 231 (10 May 2022)
The High Court upheld rape and assault convictions, but ordered part of the sentences to run concurrently to reduce the cumulative effect of 60 years.
S v Tjivinda (CRIMINAL 32 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 215 (10 May 2021)
The sentences imposed by the magistrate, particularly on count one, were disproportionate to the accused's blameworthiness as insufficient weight was given to his status as a first offender and his guilty plea, and the cumulative effect of the sentences was not considered. The sentence on count one was therefore set aside and substituted, and part of the sentence on count two was ordered to run concurrently.
Source excerpt
S v Balzer& Others (CC 14 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 111 (17 March 2021)
Minimum sentences under section 3(1)(a) of the Combating of Rape Act 8 of 2000 do not apply to offenders under 18. Absence of physical injuries does not justify a lesser sentence for rape. Wholly suspended sentences and community service are inappropriate for serious and violent offences such as rape. Sentences for multiple counts of rape arising from the same course of conduct should partially run concurrently to avoid excessive cumulative punishment. No genuine remorse was shown by the accused.
Source excerpt
S v Shapange (CRIMINAL 5 of 2021) [2021] NAHCNLD 6 (29 January 2021)
On review, the High Court confirmed the conviction for assault and crimen injuria, but set aside and replaced the sentence because the suspension condition was too vague and the consecutive sentences were too harsh.
Akawa v S (29 of 2016) [2017] NAHCNLD 84 (15 August 2017)
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s sentence for five housebreaking-and-theft convictions, finding the cumulative punishment harsh and inappropriate.
Kaxuxwena v S (Appeal Judgement) (CA 20 of 2016) [2016] NAHCNLD 87 (23 November 2016)
The sentences imposed by the trial court were not shockingly inappropriate, oppressive, or manifestly excessive. The crimes were not related to the same place and were committed months apart. There was no irregularity or misdirection in the exercise of sentencing discretion, and there are no prospects of success on appeal.
Source excerpt
S v Mtshibe (3) (90 of 2014) [2016] NASC 21 (22 August 2016)
The Supreme Court of Namibia set aside an acquittal on rape, convicted the respondent on count 2, and adjusted concurrent sentencing on related rape counts.
S v Tourob (CC 19 of 2011) [2016] NAHCMD 136 (10 May 2016)
The offences were extremely serious, involving violence against defenceless elderly victims, and no substantial or compelling circumstances justified lesser sentences; sentences for assault counts to run concurrently with the robbery sentence to mitigate cumulative effect.
Source excerpt
S v Basson (2) (CC 27 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 113 (12 April 2011)
The gravity, brutality, and premeditated nature of the offences, combined with the need to protect society, outweigh the accused's personal circumstances and plea of guilty. Separate and substantial sentences are warranted for each count, to run consecutively.
Source excerpt
S v Imene (1) (Special Review Judgment) (CRIMINAL 152 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 83 (26 October 2007)
The sentence as imposed would have no punitive effect if the fine is not paid and the imprisonment runs concurrently with an existing sentence; therefore, the portion ordering concurrency must be deleted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
