Namibia Case Law

Chika and Others v Commissioner General Raphael Amunyela: Namibia Correctional Facility and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 51 of 2020)

Chika and Others v Commissioner General Raphael Amunyela: Namibia Correctional Facility and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 51 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 233 (10 May 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 51 of 2020

The Correctional Service Act 9 of 2012 applies to the applicants as it was in force at the time of sentencing. Section 114(1) is not unconstitutional as it does not amount to unfair or unjust discrimination and does not impose a harsher penalty than that applicable at the time of the offence. The applicants are not entitled to parole consideration under the repealed statutes, and the application of section 114(1) is not retrospective in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Source excerpt

• Parole eligibility
• Retrospective application of law
• Discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Sentencing
• Interpretation of statutes

Read case analysis

Tjatendela v S

Tjatendela v S [2020] NAHCMD 372 (24 August 2020)

Court

High Court Main Division

Although the sentence was in line with established principles at the time and no apparent misdirection is evident, the combination of the applicant's actual age at sentencing and the Supreme Court's guidance on excessively long sentences creates prospects of success on appeal. Condonation is granted due to the applicant's explanation and the interests of justice.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Sentencing
• Condonation
• Leave to appeal
• Parole eligibility

Read case analysis

Eichab v Commissioner General Namibian Correctional Service: Raphael Hamunyela (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 358 of 2017)

Eichab v Commissioner General Namibian Correctional Service: Raphael Hamunyela (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 358 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 401 (6 December 2018)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 358 of 2017

The High Court dismissed a prisoner's motion seeking parole consideration and rehabilitation orders, holding the application was premature because he had not served enough of his sentence.

• Parole eligibility
• Rehabilitation programmes
• Application of repealed statutes
• Correctional services act
• Prisons act
• Parole-eligibility

Read case analysis

Kamahere and Others v Government of Republic of Namibia and Others (2) (64 of 2014)

Kamahere and Others v Government of Republic of Namibia and Others (2) (64 of 2014) [2016] NASC 17 (19 August 2016)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

64 of 2014

Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment under the Prisons Act 8 of 1959 retain the right to be considered for parole after serving 10 years, as provided by Prison Service Order 43.7.4.7, because this right accrued under the law applicable at the time of sentencing and was not extinguished by the repeal of the Act. The 2012 Act does not retrospectively extinguish this right. Mandamus relief is not time barred as the failure to consider parole eligibility is a continuing wrong.

Source excerpt

• Parole eligibility
• Life imprisonment
• Retrospective application of law
• Subordinate legislation
• Prisoners' rights

Read case analysis

Davey (118 of 2012)

Davey (118 of 2012) [2013] NAHCMD 383 (6 November 2013)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

118 of 2012

The application is stayed because the central issue—the validity of the 1986 parole policy—is already pending before another court in a case involving the same parties and cause of action. The requirements for lis pendens are satisfied, and it is pragmatic and just to await the outcome of the prior proceedings.

Source excerpt

• Parole eligibility
• Lis pendens
• Life imprisonment
• Judicial review
• Prisoner rights

Read case analysis