Namibia Case Law

Cloete v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 6 of 2022)

Cloete v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 6 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 318 (27 June 2022)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 6 of 2022

The appellant's conviction was upheld because the search was lawful under section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act due to owner consent and exigent circumstances, and the appellant's failure to cross-examine on material facts undermined his defence. The evidence established that the appellant obstructed the police in execution of their duties.

Source excerpt

• Obstructing police
• Search without warrant
• Cross-examination
• Appeal against conviction

Read case analysis

S v Johannes (CC 7 of 2020)

S v Johannes (CC 7 of 2020) [2022] NAHCNLD 11 (15 February 2022)

Court

Northern Local Division

Case number

CC 7 of 2020

The deceased was an interested party at the time of making the statements, and admitting her statements would violate the accused's constitutional right to cross-examine, resulting in severe prejudice and a gross irregularity. Therefore, the statements are inadmissible.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility of evidence
• Hearsay
• Right to fair trial
• Cross-examination
• Interested party

Read case analysis

Cirilo v Ian Copley t/a Welding Works and Renovations

Cirilo v Ian Copley t/a Welding Works and Renovations [2016] NAHCMD 160 (6 June 2016)

Court

High Court Main Division

The High Court found a material breach of an oral contract to supply balustrades, cancelled the agreement, ordered restitution, and allowed damages to be assessed.

• Breach of contract
• Damages
• Restitution
• Cancellation of contract
• Material breach
• Mora

Read case analysis

Ndabeni v Nandu (343 of 2013)

Ndabeni v Nandu (343 of 2013) [2015] NAHCMD 110 (11 May 2015)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

343 of 2013

The High Court found an oral agreement to form a timber business venture, held the defendant breached it, and ordered payment of the proved loss plus costs.

• Breach of contract
• Oral agreements
• Evidence in civil trials
• Remedies for breach
• Lay litigants and cross-examination
• Breach-of-contract

Read case analysis

S v Malumo and Others (14) (32 of 2001)

S v Malumo and Others (14) (32 of 2001) [2011] NAHC 345 (21 November 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

32 of 2001

The High Court of Namibia overruled an objection to police evidence, holding it did not amount to self-corroboration or improper impeachment of the State’s own witness.

• Impeachment of witness
• Self-corroboration
• Cross-examination
• Section 204(1) criminal procedure act
• Criminal-procedure
• Impeachment-of-witness

Read case analysis

S v Shaanika (1)

S v Shaanika (1) (CRIMINAL 89 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 290 (30 September 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

CRIMINAL 89 of 2011

On special review, the High Court held that failing to allow the accused to cross-examine the complainant was a serious irregularity and remitted the matter.

• Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm
• Right to cross-examination
• Trial irregularity
• Criminal-procedure
• Cross-examination
• Trial-irregularity

Read case analysis

S v Malumo and Others (8) (CC 32 of 2001)

S v Malumo and Others (8) (CC 32 of 2001) [2011] NAHC 55 (24 February 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

CC 32 of 2001

The late disclosure and proposed admission of new and additional witness statements would violate the accused persons’ constitutional rights to a fair trial, specifically the rights to cross-examination, to adequate time and facilities for defence, and to a trial within a reasonable time. The State failed to show that the accused would not be prejudiced. Therefore, the objection to the admission of the five new witnesses is upheld, and the State is restrained from presenting evidence based on the additional statements of the other five witnesses.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Disclosure of evidence
• Admissibility of evidence
• Continuous investigation
• Cross-examination

Read case analysis

S v Chanda (CA 9 of 2005)

S v Chanda (CA 9 of 2005) [2005] NAHC 17 (23 June 2005)

Court

High Court

Case number

CA 9 of 2005

The refusal to allow the accused to recall and cross-examine the complainant constituted a fundamental irregularity, depriving the accused of a fair trial. Additionally, the State failed to prove the Namibian court's jurisdiction over the alleged theft, as there was no evidence the stolen property was brought into Namibia. These defects vitiated the conviction and sentence.

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Jurisdiction
• Hearsay evidence
• Right to fair trial
• Cross-examination

Read case analysis