Namibia Case Law

Namiseb v Minister of Safety and Security (2) (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 4178 of 2019)

Namiseb v Minister of Safety and Security (2) (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 4178 of 2019) [2020] NAHCMD 572 (7 December 2020)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 4178 of 2019

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on all elements of his claim, including lack of evidence of the red notice's wording, proof of defamation, or violation of constitutional rights. The court found the red notice justified and lawful given the plaintiff's conviction and status as a fugitive. Absolution from the instance was granted as no reasonable court could find for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Damages
• Absolution from the instance
• Extradition
• Human dignity (article 8)

Read case analysis

S v Munuma and Others (4) (37 of 2015)

S v Munuma and Others (4) (37 of 2015) [2016] NASC 19 (22 August 2016)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

37 of 2015

For the seventh appellant, Namibian agents exercised coercive power and performed a sovereign act of arrest on Botswana territory, violating international law and ousting jurisdiction; for the remaining appellants, they were surrendered by Botswana authorities on Namibian soil without solicitation or unlawful conduct by Namibian agents, so jurisdiction was proper.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Extradition
• Abduction
• International comity
• Refugee law
• Immigration law

Read case analysis

Alexander v Minister of Justice and Others (2) (Appeal Judgment) (SA 32 of 2008)

Alexander v Minister of Justice and Others (2) (Appeal Judgment) (SA 32 of 2008) [2010] NASC 2 (9 April 2010)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 32 of 2008

The Supreme Court of Namibia held that section 21 of the Extradition Act unconstitutionally barred bail after committal, but rejected the claim that only one magistrate could conduct the enquiry.

• Constitutionality of statutory provisions
• Right to liberty
• Bail in extradition proceedings
• Judicial powers in extradition
• Interpretation of extradition statutes
• Extradition

Read case analysis

S v Munuma and Others (1) (CC 3 of 2004)

S v Munuma and Others (1) (CC 3 of 2004) [2005] NAHC 39 (25 October 2005)

Court

High Court

Case number

CC 3 of 2004

The accused were lawfully brought before the court as the evidence showed that the Botswana authorities independently decided to deport them and merely informed the Namibian authorities, who received them at the border. There was no evidence of Namibian involvement or connivance in the deportation process. The clean hands doctrine was not violated, and the court has jurisdiction to try the accused.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Extradition
• Deportation
• High treason
• Sedition
• Public violence

Read case analysis

S v Mushwena and Others (SA 4 of 2004)

S v Mushwena and Others (SA 4 of 2004) [2004] NASC 2 (21 July 2004)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 4 of 2004

The majority of the Supreme Court found that, except for Charles Kalipa Samboma, the respondents were brought before the Namibian court through a process that bypassed mandatory extradition and deportation procedures, with active involvement or acquiescence of Namibian authorities, resulting in a breach of the rule of law and the respondents' rights. This tainted the proceedings and required the court to decline jurisdiction over the twelve respondents. In the case of Charles Kalipa Samboma, the evidence showed he voluntarily surrendered and consented to return, so the court retained jurisdic…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Deportation
• Jurisdiction
• Abduction
• Due process
• Rule of law

Read case analysis

Likanyi v S (2 of 2016)

Likanyi v S (2 of 2016) [2017] NASC 10 (7 August 2017)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

2 of 2016

The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 81 of the Constitution, may reverse its own prior decision in exceptional circumstances to prevent manifest injustice. The applicant was in an identical position to another accused whose prosecution was permanently stayed due to unlawful removal from Botswana by Namibian authorities. The failure to extend the same relief to the applicant constituted a grave injustice and unequal treatment. The State failed to prove the High Court had jurisdiction to try the applicant. The prior Supreme Court decision was reversed, the appli…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Res judicata
• Equality before the law
• Extradition
• Inherent jurisdiction of apex court

Read case analysis