Namibia Case Law

Prime Paradise v Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB and Others (SA 86 of 2021; SA 92 of 2021)

Prime Paradise v Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB and Others (SA 86 of 2021; SA 92 of 2021) [2022] NASC 14 (26 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 86 of 2021 ; SA 92 of 2021

The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its wide discretion under Rule 138 to order the sale of the vessel pendente lite, as the registered owner supported the sale, the mortgagee's claim was undisputed, and Prime's opposition was based on inadmissible hearsay and unsupported allegations of fraud. The court further held that ACT Maritime LLC had standing under the loan agreement and mortgage. The order for security for preservation costs was interlocutory and, without leave to appeal, the appeal was struck from the roll.

Source excerpt

• Judicial sale of vessel
• Security for preservation costs
• Standing to sue
• Hearsay evidence
• Interlocutory appeals

Read case analysis

Shidangi v S (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 49 of 2020)

Shidangi v S (HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 49 of 2020) [2022] NAHCNLD 10 (15 February 2022)

Court

Northern Local Division

Case number

HC-NLD-CRI-APP-CAL 49 of 2020

There was no admissible evidence linking the appellant or accused 1 to the cannabis found in the room. The trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence and equating access to the room with possession of cannabis. The State failed to prove possession and intention to control the cannabis beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences must be set aside.

Source excerpt

• Appeal
• Hearsay evidence
• Onus of proof
• Possession of drugs
• Condonation
• Notice of appeal

Read case analysis

Prosecutor-General v Oliveira and Another (SA 76 of 2019)

Prosecutor-General v Oliveira and Another (SA 76 of 2019) [2021] NASC 49 (29 November 2021)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

SA 76 of 2019

The High Court was not precluded from making a provisional preservation of property order in urgent ex parte proceedings while directing the Prosecutor-General to file complete papers under s 91(4) of POCA. The language of s 91(4) is permissive, not exclusive. Reliance on hearsay evidence did not render the proceedings unfair, as the order was provisional and subject to further challenge. There was sufficient information to justify the provisional order.

Source excerpt

• Preservation of property
• Hearsay evidence
• Urgent applications
• Mutual legal assistance
• Asset forfeiture

Read case analysis

S v Mukuve

S v Mukuve (CRIMINAL 46 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 257 (27 May 2021)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

CRIMINAL 46 of 2021

High Court review setting aside convictions for culpable homicide and failure to render assistance, because the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay and weak circumstantial evidence.

• Culpable homicide
• Hearsay evidence
• Circumstantial evidence
• Failure to render assistance
• Operating without driver's license
• Hearsay-evidence

Read case analysis

Khoe-Aub v Aljo Investments CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4550 of 2016)

Khoe-Aub v Aljo Investments CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4550 of 2016) [2020] NAHCMD 546 (26 November 2020)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4550 of 2016

The High Court struck a rescission application from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 32(9) and (10), and upheld objections based on hearsay and missing annexures.

• Rescission of judgment
• Compliance with procedural rules
• Hearsay evidence
• Affidavit requirements
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Procedural-compliance

Read case analysis

Justice v Tulu Trading Enterprises CC

Justice v Tulu Trading Enterprises CC [2020] NAHCMD 412 (14 September 2020)

Court

High Court Main Division

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was entitled to profit sharing or additional payments, and the evidence established he was an employee, not an independent contractor. The plaintiff's evidence was found to be improbable, disjointed, and lacking credibility, while the defendant's version was more probable and detailed. Hearsay evidence regarding profit was inadmissible, and the plaintiff did not establish the existence of profit to support his claim.

Source excerpt

• Oral agreements
• Employment status
• Profit sharing
• Burden of proof
• Hearsay evidence

Read case analysis

Van Wyk v Matrix Mining (Pty) Ltd

Van Wyk v Matrix Mining (Pty) Ltd [2020] NAHCNLD 109 (19 August 2020)

Court

Northern Local Division

The High Court discharged an urgent ex parte rule nisi after finding material non-disclosure, unauthenticated foreign documents, hearsay, and no competent jurisdictional relief.

• Ex parte applications
• Urgent applications
• Attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction
• Non-disclosure
• Authentication of foreign documents
• Hearsay evidence

Read case analysis

Karslruh Number 1 Farming CC v Esterhuizen

Karslruh Number 1 Farming CC v Esterhuizen [2020] NAHCMD 255 (16 June 2020)

Court

High Court Main Division

The High Court refused to vary an earlier rescission order and dismissed condonation because the applicants did not give a sufficient explanation for non-compliance.

• Variation of court orders
• Condonation for non-compliance
• Rescission of judgment
• Functus officio
• Hearsay evidence
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Prosecutor-General v Paulo and Another (1) (POCA 13 of 2015)

Prosecutor-General v Paulo and Another (1) (POCA 13 of 2015) [2017] NAHCMD 43 (17 February 2017)

Court

High Court Main Division

Case number

POCA 13 of 2015

The High Court allowed confirmatory affidavits in a POCA forfeiture matter, finding the explanation acceptable and the interests of justice favored admission.

• Admissibility of affidavits
• Supplementary affidavits
• Hearsay evidence
• Interests of justice
• Poca compliance
• Confirmatory-affidavits

Read case analysis

S v Nauyoma (CA 28 of 2009)

S v Nauyoma (CA 28 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 202 (13 July 2011)

Court

High Court

Case number

CA 28 of 2009

The High Court dismissed an application to condone a late criminal appeal and struck the appeal from the roll, finding no good cause and no evidentiary misdirection.

• Housebreaking
• Theft
• Admissibility of evidence
• Condonation of late appeal
• Hearsay evidence
• Criminal-procedure

Read case analysis