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 Amunyela (CC 13 of 2020) [2022] NAHCNLD 130 (13 December 2022)
The High Court of Namibia convicted the accused of murder, finding circumstantial evidence and last-seen evidence excluded any reasonable innocent inference.
Smith v Schiefer (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4887 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 638 (22 November 2022)
The High Court of Namibia dismissed the defendant’s application to amend the pre-trial order to add witnesses and a photo plan, awarding costs.
Amukena v Nampower (HC-MD-LAB-MOT-REV 92 of 2021) [2022] NALCMD 39 (11 July 2022)
Interlocutory ruling in a labour review application: cellphone transcription formed part of the record, late filing was condoned, and relief against a non-party was refused.
State v Du Plessis (CC 13 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 102 (9 March 2021)
In a trial-within-a-trial, the High Court ruled a warning statement inadmissible after finding the accused’s right to legal representation was not properly respected.
Embula v S (HC-NLD-CRIMINALI-APP-CAL 10 of 2017) [2019] NAHCNLD 9 (29 January 2019)
The High Court set aside a theft and housebreaking conviction after finding a warning statement was improperly admitted and no other reliable evidence supported guilt.
Arangies and Another v Unitrans Namibia (PTY) LTD and Another (1 of 2018) [2018] NASC 401 (27 July 2018)
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court status-hearing order for procedural irregularity, but refused leave to file late witness statements and video evidence.
Beukes and Another v First National Bank Limited and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 235 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 94 (13 April 2018)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a sale in execution, holding that the applicants’ valuation certificate was inadmissible and Rule 110(9) was not proved breached.
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 Immanuel (9) (Appeal Judgment) (CA 53 of 2013) [2016] NAHCNLD 92 (18 November 2016)
The High Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside an acquittal for theft, and entered a conviction after finding the remaining evidence proved a prima facie case.
S v Windstaan and Another (CC 19 of 2010) [2016] NAHCMD 48 (3 March 2016)
The High Court held that accused 2’s warning statement was admissible, finding it was made freely and voluntarily, without assault or undue influence.
Explore more
