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
S v Tjiongwa (CR 40 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 255 (20 May 2022)
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the court a quo failed to establish through questioning that the accused intended to steal at the time of entering the premises, thus not all elements of the offence were admitted.
Source excerpt
S v Reedt (CR 25 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 171 (5 April 2022)
The convictions and sentences cannot stand because the accused were not questioned on their intention at the time of entering the complainant’s premises, and thus did not admit all elements of the offence.
Source excerpt
Joubert & Another v State (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 20 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 245 (21 May 2021)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in a criminal matter about whether a once-off pro hac vice bail appearance amounts to carrying on a profession.
S v Sakaria (3) (Review Judgment) (CRIMINAL 79 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 257 (24 August 2011)
The High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft because the magistrate did not establish intent at entry.
Paulu v S (CA 24 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 132 (19 May 2011)
The High Court of Namibia held that mens rea is required for section 35(1) Anti-Corruption Act offences, with dolus as the form required.
S v Kido (1) (CRIMINAL 26 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 87 (22 March 2011)
The High Court of Namibia set aside a theft conviction after finding the accused had not admitted the mens rea for theft, and substituted a conviction for unauthorised borrowing.
Nghipandulwa v S (SA 39 of 2008) [2009] NASC 14 (26 October 2009)
The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused 2 participated in the planning or execution of the robbery or that his conduct after the robbery was in furtherance of it with the necessary mens rea. The State failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true.
Source excerpt
S v Williams (Review Judgment) (CRIMINAL 73 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 26 (4 June 2007)
The accused's explanation that he was hiding and did not intend to trespass could reasonably possibly be true, demonstrating absence of mens rea; therefore, conviction cannot stand.
Source excerpt
S v Sibande and Another (SA 16 of 2001) [2002] NASC 14 (11 October 2002)
Appeal against conviction for dealing in cocaine dismissed; the court held the circumstantial evidence proved constructive guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
S v Sam (SA of 2001) [2002] NASC 13 (3 October 2002)
The court found that the integrity of the cocaine evidence was maintained, the changes in colour and weight were scientifically explained, and the circumstantial evidence established the appellant's guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge's misdirections did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was appropriate and not excessive.
Source excerpt
Explore more
