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 Esau (CR 70 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 386 (2 August 2022)
The High Court set aside a section 174 discharge because the prosecutor lacked Prosecutor General consent to stop the prosecution, and remitted the case for trial.
S v Amupolo (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-SNA 3 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 70 (8 July 2022)
The High Court set aside a section 174 discharge in a criminal appeal, holding that the State had made out a prima facie case on crimen injuria and assault.
S v Hainana (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-SNA 2 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 66 (24 June 2022)
Criminal appeal on condonation, postponement, and a section 174 discharge. The High Court upheld the appeal and remitted the matter for trial.
S v Johannes (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-SLA 43 of 2021) [2022] NAHCNLD 60 (10 June 2022)
The High Court granted the State leave to appeal a section 174 discharge, finding arguable prospects after the magistrate discharged the respondent without hearing the State.
Van Rensburg v S (CC 24 of 2012) [2017] NAHCMD 44 (22 February 2017)
The High Court invalidated a search warrant and related seizures, but refused to discharge the accused under section 174 because the State had made a prima facie case.
S v Klaas (CRIMINAL 7 of 2016) [2016] NAHCMD 27 (15 February 2016)
The High Court set aside a discharge granted under section 174 after finding the complainant’s evidence established a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer.
S v Ngesheya (CC 22 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 297 (29 September 2011)
At the close of the State case, the High Court held the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and discharged the accused on murder, robbery and justice charges.
S v Hihanguapo and Another (CA 93 of 1997) [2000] NAHC 10 (28 April 2000)
The magistrate erred in finding no prima facie case at the close of the State's case, as the evidence supported the inference of unlawful removal of property. The order of discharge is appealable, and the acquittal was set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
