Namibia Case Law

S v Hoxobeb (3) (CC 19 of 2020)

S v Hoxobeb (3) (CC 19 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 226 (12 May 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CC 19 of 2020

The applicant has a propensity for violent offences, the State has a strong prima facie case, and his release would be prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice. The applicant failed to discharge the onus to show on a balance of probabilities that bail should be granted. His constitutional rights are not absolute and are not infringed by refusal of bail in these circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• Murder
• Assault by threat
• Domestic violence
• Presumption of innocence
• Right to liberty

Read case analysis

Noble v S (HC-MD-CRIMINALI-APP-CAL 79 of 2018)

Noble v S (HC-MD-CRIMINALI-APP-CAL 79 of 2018) [2019] NAHCMD 12 (5 February 2019)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CRIMINALI-APP-CAL 79 of 2018

The High Court dismissed a bail appeal in a drug-trafficking case, holding that the magistrate was not clearly wrong and could rely on public interest concerns.

• Bail
• Drug offences
• Judicial discretion
• Public interest
• Presumption of innocence
• Drug-offences

Read case analysis

Gomes v Prosecutor-General of Republic of Namibia and Others (APPEAL 61 of 2012)

Gomes v Prosecutor-General of Republic of Namibia and Others (APPEAL 61 of 2012) [2013] NAHCMD 240 (9 August 2013)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

APPEAL 61 of 2012

The High Court of Namibia struck down the reverse onus phrase in section 7(1) of the General Law Amendment Ordinance as unconstitutional and ordered costs against the State.

• Presumption of innocence
• Reverse onus
• Fair trial rights
• Burden of proof
• Reverse-onus
• Presumption-of-innocence

Read case analysis

Unengu v S (CA 38 of 2013)

Unengu v S (CA 38 of 2013) [2013] NAHCMD 202 (18 July 2013)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CA 38 of 2013

The Magistrate's refusal of bail was wrong because the inquiry under Section 61 was flawed: the appellant was not sufficiently informed of the allegations, the state did not prove the strength of its case, and the risk factors did not justify refusal. Stringent bail conditions could address any legitimate concerns.

Source excerpt

• Bail
• Appeals
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial discretion
• Rape

Read case analysis

Paulu v S (CA 24 of 2009)

Paulu v S (CA 24 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 132 (19 May 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

CA 24 of 2009

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.

• Statutory offences
• Mens rea
• Strict liability
• Anti-corruption
• Presumption of innocence
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

Kamoruao v S (None 64 of 2011)

Kamoruao v S (None 64 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 64 (10 March 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

None 64 of 2011

The High Court of Namibia granted bail after the State closed its case, finding no sufficient basis to deny release and imposing reporting conditions.

• Bail pending trial
• Presumption of innocence
• Risk of absconding
• Delay in prosecution
• Bail-pending-trial
• Risk-of-absconding

Read case analysis

S v Dausab (2) (Judgment : bail application) (CC 38 of 2009)

S v Dausab (2) (Judgment : bail application) (CC 38 of 2009) [2010] NAHC 90 (20 September 2010)

Court

High Court

Case number

CC 38 of 2009

The High Court of Namibia refused Julius Dausab bail in a murder case, finding he had not shown release would not endanger the public or prejudice justice.

• Bail
• Right to liberty
• Presumption of innocence
• Murder
• Arms and ammunition offences
• Pretrial-detention

Read case analysis

Hendricks and Others v Attorney General of Namibia and Others (PA 140 of 2000)

Hendricks and Others v Attorney General of Namibia and Others (PA 140 of 2000) [2002] NAHC 4 (20 August 2002)

Court

High Court

Case number

PA 140 of 2000

Section 1(i) of the Act is unconstitutional to the extent it defines 'brothel' to include places used for 'unlawful carnal intercourse' or 'any other lewd or immoral purpose' as this is overbroad and not rationally connected to the Act's objectives. Sections 2(3) and 12(1) and (2) are unconstitutional as they impose reverse onus provisions that violate the presumption of innocence. The remainder of section 2(1) (brothel-keeping for prostitution) and section 10(a) (living on earnings of prostitution) are constitutional as they are reasonable restrictions on economic freedom and not overly broa…

Source excerpt

• Vagueness and overbreadth
• Economic freedom
• Presumption of innocence
• Reverse onus
• Severability
• Standing (locus standi)

Read case analysis

S v Longer (SA 1 of 1999)

S v Longer (SA 1 of 1999) [2000] NASC 4 (8 December 2000)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 1 of 1999

The appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the evidence established that he acted at least recklessly as to whether the cheques would be met, satisfying the intention element for fraud. Sections 245 and 236 were valid at the time, and the High Court correctly refused condonation.

Source excerpt

• Fraud
• Cheque offences
• Presumption of innocence
• Unconstitutionality of statutory presumptions
• Condonation applications

Read case analysis

Freiremar SA v Prosecutor General of Namibia and Another (APPEAL 72 of 1994)

Freiremar SA v Prosecutor General of Namibia and Another (APPEAL 72 of 1994) [1994] NAHC 5 (8 April 1994)

Court

High Court

Case number

APPEAL 72 of 1994

The reverse onus in section 17(1) of Act 58 of 1973 is unconstitutional as it applies to all rightholders, not just owners, because there is no rational connection between the fact of illegal fishing and the presumed complicity or ability to prevent the offence for all classes of rightholders. The provision is arbitrary and unreasonable in its application to non-owners and thus violates Article 12(1)(d) of the Constitution. The unconstitutional portion cannot be severed without judicial legislation, so it must be struck out.

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture of property
• Reverse onus provisions
• Presumption of innocence
• Rights of property holders
• Interpretation of constitutional rights

Read case analysis