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 Kanseb (CR 59 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 115 (19 October 2022)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction for common-law escaping from lawful custody because it was not a competent verdict to the statutory charge.
S v Gebhard (CR 92 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 453 (1 September 2022)
The High Court set aside a district court conviction on a competent verdict and substituted a conviction for motor vehicle theft after finding reckless abandonment.
S v Benjamin (1) (CRIMINAL 14 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 133 (18 May 2011)
It was irregular and contrary to law and fair trial principles to convict and sentence the accused on a charge of theft that was not put to him; only the conviction and sentence for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft are confirmed.
Source excerpt
S v Kariko (2) (CC 18 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 5 (21 January 2011)
The High Court of Namibia sentenced Ephraim Kariko to six years for theft and two years for defeating the course of justice, to run consecutively.
S v Mpanda (CRIMINAL 19 of 2010) [2010] NAHC 110 (28 September 2010)
High Court review setting aside a conviction and sentence because the accused was convicted on an alternative charge not put to him or pleaded to.
S v Kharuxab (2) (CRIMINAL 120 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 136 (10 October 2007)
On review, the High Court substituted a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal after the accused admitted that intention during section 112 questioning.
S v Kharuxab (1) (CRIMINAL 120 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 63 (10 August 2007)
The accused admitted during questioning that he intended to steal, making it appropriate to convict him of housebreaking with intent to steal rather than with intent to commit a crime unknown to the State.
Source excerpt
S v Aixas and Another (CRIMINAL 96 of 2006) [2006] NAHC 42 (23 October 2006)
High Court review set aside a theft conviction entered as an improper “competent verdict” and substituted convictions under s. 7(1) of Ordinance 12 of 1956.
S v Katari (CA 124 of 2004) [2005] NAHC 13 (16 June 2005)
The omission of the date in the charge did not prejudice the appellant as the date was unknown and stated as such; the absence of a complainant does not preclude prosecution; the evidence of the single witness was clear and satisfactory, establishing a prima facie case which, in the absence of rebuttal, became conclusive of guilt; the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate.
Source excerpt
Explore more
