Namibia Case Law

Hatuikulipi v S (CC 6 of 2021)

Hatuikulipi v S (CC 6 of 2021) [2022] NALCMD 693 (27 December 2022)

Court

Labour Court Main Division

Case number

CC 6 of 2021

The applicant's new facts, though new, do not establish a new perspective that impacts on the old facts or change the basis on which bail was initially refused. The State has made out a strong prima facie case, the offences are serious, and the interests of justice do not merit release on bail under these circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• New facts in bail applications
• Racketeering
• Money laundering
• Fraud
• Theft

Read case analysis

Hatuikulipi v S (CC 6 of 2021)

Hatuikulipi v S (CC 6 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 693 (27 December 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CC 6 of 2021

The applicant's new facts, though new, do not change the basis on which bail was initially refused. The State has established a strong prima facie case, and the seriousness of the offences, public interest, and administration of justice justify continued detention. The new facts do not establish a new perspective impacting the old facts; bail is refused.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• New facts in bail applications
• Racketeering
• Money laundering
• Fraud
• Theft

Read case analysis

S v Gustavo (SA 58 of 2022)

S v Gustavo (SA 58 of 2022) [2022] NASC 45 (2 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 58 of 2022

The High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly assess the impact of the new facts advanced by the respondent, by relying on an unenforceable and unspecified GPS monitoring condition, and by not giving due weight to the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the State's case, and the public interest. The discretion to grant bail was exercised on wrong principles and must be set aside.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• Discretion of court
• Public interest
• Economic crimes
• Corruption
• Racketeering

Read case analysis

S v Nghihalwa and Others (CC 3 of 2020)

S v Nghihalwa and Others (CC 3 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 276 (2 June 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CC 3 of 2020

The High Court struck an application for leave to appeal from the roll because it failed to state proper grounds or show reasonable prospects of success.

• Leave to appeal
• Recusal of judge
• Fraud
• Money laundering
• Criminal-procedure
• Leave-to-appeal

Read case analysis

Shanghala and Others v S (CC 6 of 2021)

Shanghala and Others v S (CC 6 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 164 (1 April 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CC 6 of 2021

The applicants failed to discharge the onus to show that the interests of justice require their release on bail. The seriousness of the charges, the strength of the State's case, the risk of interference with evidence and witnesses, and the public interest outweigh the applicants' personal circumstances and constitutional arguments. The court is not satisfied that their continued detention is unconstitutional or unlawful, and the administration of justice would be prejudiced by their release.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• Corruption
• Money laundering
• Fraud
• Constitutional rights
• Criminal procedure

Read case analysis

Claasen v State (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 110 of 2020)

Claasen v State (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 110 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 279 (7 June 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 110 of 2020

Convicting the appellant of both the predicate offence of corruption and money laundering under section 6(a) and 6(b) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act constituted an impermissible duplication of convictions, as established in State v Henock. Therefore, the convictions on counts 2 and 3 and the sentence based on all three counts could not stand.

Source excerpt

• Corruption
• Money laundering
• Duplication of convictions
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

Prosecutor-General v Paulo and Another (2) (POCA 13 of 2015)

Prosecutor-General v Paulo and Another (2) (POCA 13 of 2015) [2021] NAHCMD 112 (17 March 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

POCA 13 of 2015

The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondents committed the alleged offences or that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities. While fraud was established in relation to documents submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there was no causal connection between that fraud and the properties. The requirements for forfeiture under POCA were not met.

Source excerpt

• Proceeds of unlawful activities
• Money laundering
• Exchange control
• Immigration law
• Fraud
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

S v Esau and Another (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 82 of 2020)

S v Esau and Another (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 82 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 84 (26 February 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 82 of 2020

High Court bail appeal dismissed after finding a strong prima facie case and that public interest and the administration of justice justified continued detention.

• Bail
• Anti-corruption
• Money laundering
• Fraud
• Public interest
• Administration of justice

Read case analysis

Paulus v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 111 of 2020)

Paulus v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 111 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 79 (26 February 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 111 of 2020

High Court appeal against refusal of bail dismissed. The court held the magistrate did not exercise her discretion wrongly, given the prima facie case, seriousness of the charges, and pending similar matters.

• Bail
• Fraud
• Money laundering
• Judicial discretion
• Covid-19 procedures
• Criminal-procedure

Read case analysis

Amushelelo v The Magistrate, Windhoek (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 397 of 2019)

Amushelelo v The Magistrate, Windhoek (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 397 of 2019) [2020] NAHCMD 559 (4 December 2020)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 397 of 2019

The search and seizure warrants were invalid due to lack of judicial impartiality, overbreadth, vagueness, and failure to properly apply the mind to the supporting evidence and statutory requirements. The Magistrate's conduct and the warrants' defects undermined the appearance and reality of justice. However, the Inspector-General and Namibian Police acted within their statutory powers in commencing investigations under the Banking Institutions Act and POCA, and the applicants failed to establish grounds for review of those decisions.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Judicial impartiality
• Banking regulation
• Money laundering
• Review of administrative action

Read case analysis