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 Pretorius (CC 2 of 2018) [2022] NAHCMD 114 (15 March 2022)
The High Court of Namibia sentenced Marthinus Pretorius to 35 years’ imprisonment after convictions for rape and trafficking of minor girls, finding no basis to depart from minimum sentences.
S v Fritz (2) (CC 12 of 2015) [2021] NAHCMD 244 (20 May 2021)
Sentencing judgment for murder, rape, robbery and obstructing justice. The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances for rape and imposed 31 years’ imprisonment.
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
Nghipunya v S [2020] NAHCNLD 124 (3 September 2020)
The court found that the appellant's explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal was not reasonable, and there were no prospects of success on the conviction. However, the magistrate failed to comply with statutory guidelines in sentencing, particularly by not explaining minimum sentences and substantial and compelling circumstances to the unrepresented appellant, amounting to a misdirection. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was set aside and the matter remitted for sentencing afresh.
Source excerpt
Inicko v The State (HC-NLD-CRIMINALI-APP-CAL 65 of 2019) [2020] NAHCNLD 30 (24 February 2020)
The High Court remitted a rape sentence appeal because the magistrate failed to explain minimum sentence guidelines and substantial and compelling circumstances to an unrepresented accused.
Lambert v S (CA 58 of 2013) [2013] NAHCMD 213 (12 July 2013)
The value of the stolen stock was not properly determined, and the appellant was not adequately informed of his rights and the penalty clause under section 14 of the Stock Theft Act, 1990, resulting in procedural irregularities that tainted the sentencing process. The conviction is confirmed, but the sentence is set aside and substituted.
Source excerpt
S v Simon (3) (Sentence) (CC 8 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 299 (3 October 2011)
The High Court of Namibia sentenced Jacob Simon for rape and murder, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the prescribed minimum for rape.
S v Tjinana (CA 4 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 284 (23 September 2011)
The High Court of Namibia upheld an appeal against sentence in a stock-theft case, finding the regional court’s sentence disproportionate and substituting eight years’ imprisonment.
S v Gaeseb (2) (CRIMINAL 43 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 144 (26 May 2011)
The High Court confirmed the conviction for attempted stock theft but set aside the sentence, finding it incompetent and remitting the matter for fresh sentencing.
S v Mateus (CC 23 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 70 (14 March 2011)
The High Court of Namibia sentenced Petrus Mateus for raping a one-year-old child, finding aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigation and imposing 20 years with 3 years suspended.
Explore more
