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
Government of Republic of Namibia v Uupindi (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 4068 of 2018) [2021] NAHCMD 585 (9 December 2021)
The High Court struck interlocutory and condonation applications from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 32(9) and (10), and ordered costs against the plaintiff.
Namibia Electrical Services CC v Nefussy (SA 62 of 2019) [2021] NASC 30 (13 July 2021)
The Supreme Court of Namibia held that once the parties told the High Court they had agreed to private arbitration, the court should not have proceeded with the pending applications.
Kamwi v Standard Bank Namibia Limited (SA 54 of 2018) [2020] NASC 50 (4 November 2020)
The Supreme Court of Namibia dismissed an application to reinstate a late appeal over costs taxation, holding the appellant could claim only disbursements reasonably incurred.
Prosecutor-General v Paulo (2) [2020] NASC 19 (24 June 2020)
The Supreme Court held that the application for a forfeiture order under POCA is not a new proceeding but the second stage of a single, intertwined process initiated by the preservation order. Therefore, compliance with rule 65(1) is not required for the forfeiture application if it was complied with at the preservation stage. The High Court erred in treating the forfeiture application as a nullity for non-compliance with rule 65(1). Service at the GOSP was proper. The matter is remitted to the High Court for determination on the merits.
Source excerpt
Escon Electrical CC & Another v Bank Windhoek Ltd (210 of 2013) [2017] NAHCMD 258 (6 September 2017)
The High Court struck the defendant’s pleadings for repeated case-management non-compliance and granted default judgment to the plaintiffs.
S v Longer (SA 1 of 1999) [2000] NASC 4 (8 December 2000)
The appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the evidence established that he acted at least recklessly as to whether the cheques would be met, satisfying the intention element for fraud. Sections 245 and 236 were valid at the time, and the High Court correctly refused condonation.
Source excerpt
Kandando v Medical and Dental Council of Namibia (SA 29 of 2018) [2020] NASC 31 (7 May 2020)
There was no reasonable explanation for the appellant's non-compliance with procedural rules, and the wording of regulation 10(c) is clear and unambiguous: a specialist clinical biochemist may only examine and conduct tests on a patient referred by a medical practitioner as requested in the referral. The process leading to the enactment of the regulation was lawful and within the powers of the respondents.
Source excerpt
Explore more
