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 Amib (CR 103 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 647 (29 November 2022)
The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after finding that the magistrate failed to properly question the accused under section 112(1)(b) and risked duplication of convictions.
S v Ngejama (CR 47 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 96 (26 September 2022)
High Court review setting aside criminal convictions after finding a duplication of convictions and defects in plea questioning under the CPA.
S v Hango (CR 28 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 182 (11 April 2022)
The evidence necessary to establish uttering was the same as that required to prove fraud; thus, convicting on both amounts to duplication. Only the more serious offence (fraud) should stand.
Source excerpt
Coleman v S (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 61 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 31 (4 February 2022)
The appeal court found that the complainant was a credible single witness whose evidence was corroborated in material respects, that rape and kidnapping are distinct offences with different elements and evidentiary requirements, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion regarding the subpoena of witnesses, that the cautionary rule was correctly applied, and that the sentence imposed was not shockingly inappropriate or unreasonable. There was no misdirection by the trial court on any ground of appeal.
Source excerpt
Claasen v State (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 110 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 279 (7 June 2021)
Convicting the appellant of both the predicate offence of corruption and money laundering under section 6(a) and 6(b) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act constituted an impermissible duplication of convictions, as established in State v Henock. Therefore, the convictions on counts 2 and 3 and the sentence based on all three counts could not stand.
Source excerpt
Haukena v S [2019] NAHCNLD 145 (5 December 2019)
The High Court set aside 63 uttering convictions for improper duplication, confirmed fraud and forgery convictions, and resentenced the appellant.
S v Iyambo and Others (CRIMINAL 10 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 116 (13 April 2011)
High Court review set aside convictions and sentences entered on guilty pleas, citing improper use of s 112(1)(a), juvenile sentencing concerns, duplication of convictions, and invalid stopping of prosecution.
S v Mwetuyeka (CC 8 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 27 (5 June 2007)
The convictions for assault and rape constituted a duplication, but no prejudice resulted as both were taken together for sentencing. There was no expert evidence of grievous bodily or mental harm as a result of the rape, so the minimum sentence of 20 years under s 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Combating of Rape Act applied. No substantial and compelling circumstances were presented to justify a lesser sentence. The sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the previous sentence as there was no basis for concurrency.
Source excerpt
S v Katuta (CA 13 of 2004) [2005] NAHC 12 (15 June 2005)
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant inserted his penis into the complainant’s vagina as required by the charge of statutory rape, and the prosecution witnesses were not credible regarding the housebreaking charge. The appellate court lacked statutory authority to substitute a conviction for kidnapping after acquittal at trial.
Source excerpt
S v Gaseb and Others (1) (9 of 1999) [2000] NASC 6 (9 August 2000)
It is not unsound or oppressive to charge each accused with multiple counts of rape for assisting in the rape of the other; the concern is with duplication of convictions, not charges. On the facts, each act of rape was a separate offence, and there was no improper duplication of convictions. The medical report and evidence were properly admitted by express and informed consent. The trial judge's structuring did not affect the verdicts. The sentences were not excessive given the gravity of the offences.
Source excerpt
Explore more
