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
Paulus v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 62 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 498 (23 September 2022)
The High Court allowed a bail appeal, holding the magistrate wrongly refused to hear evidence on alleged new facts before ruling on the application.
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.
Mouse Properties Ninety Eight CC v Minister of Urban and Rural Development and Others (SA 14 of 2020) [2022] NASC 13 (11 April 2022)
The Minister's approval was required for the sale under s 30(1)(t) of the Local Authorities Act, not s 63. The Minister acted ultra vires by purporting to act under s 63, which did not apply. The audi alteram partem rule was breached as the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to objections or issues raised. The Minister's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration under the correct statutory provision, with the appellant to be given an opportunity to make representations.
Source excerpt
Uiseb v All People’s Party and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 309 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 311 (1 July 2021)
The court held that the relationship between the plaintiff and the APP was contractual, governed by the party's constitution and code of conduct. The APP failed to comply with principles of natural justice by not giving the plaintiff proper notice of the allegations or a fair opportunity to be heard before his recall. This breach was the direct cause of the plaintiff's loss of income, entitling him to damages.
Source excerpt
Howard House Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Swartz (HC-MD-LAB-APP-AAA 45 of 2018) [2019] NALCMD 16 (5 June 2019)
The appellant failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and section 33 of the Labour Act, 2007 by not conducting a disciplinary hearing or affording the respondent an opportunity to be heard before dismissal. The arbitrator’s finding that the dismissal was without valid reason and fair procedure was correct, and there was no basis to interfere with the compensation awarded.
Source excerpt
Goseb v Usakos Town Council and Another (HC-MD-LAB-APP-AAA 36 of 2018) [2019] NALCMD 12 (8 May 2019)
The appellant was not dismissed; his statutory fixed term contract ended by effluxion of time with proper notice as required by law and contract. There was no legitimate expectation of renewal, and the Council was not obliged to provide reasons or a hearing before deciding not to renew. No unfair labour practice was committed.
Source excerpt
Ngavetene and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Water and Forestry and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-CRIMINALT 316 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 387 (26 November 2018)
The High Court set aside the Minister’s appointment of Meatco directors, finding the decision ultra vires, procedurally unfair, and made without proper regard to the Act.
Central Procurement Board v Nangolo N.O. (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV 441 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 357 (9 November 2018)
The Review Panel's decision was set aside because the applicant was not served with the application for review and was denied a fair opportunity to be heard, rendering the proceedings a nullity. The Review Panel had no power to set aside the tender award under s.60(c) of the Public Procurement Act, 15 of 2015, as the award brought a procurement contract into force. The transitional provisions meant the repealed Act applied to the tender, and the applicant was not required to consult the Policy Unit before appointing Bid Evaluation Committees.
Source excerpt
Auas Valley Residents Association and Others v Minister of Environment and Tourism and Others (HC-MD-CIV-APP-ATL 3 of 2018) [2018] NAHCMD 267 (4 September 2018)
The appeal was properly before the court as the time limit for appeal commenced when appellants received the Minister's decision. The Minister was required, by statutory representation in Form 3 under s 50 of Act 7 of 2007, to afford appellants an opportunity to present oral evidence, giving rise to a legitimate expectation. The denial of such a hearing vitiated the Minister's decision, which was set aside.
Source excerpt
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.
Explore more
