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 Masikilo (CR 139 of 2022) [2022] NAHCMD 669 (8 December 2022)
On automatic review, the court set aside an incorrect conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft and substituted housebreaking with intent to steal.
S v Napadje (CR 58 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 112 (14 October 2022)
On automatic review, the court substituted a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal after the accused admitted he intended to steal a TV.
S v Gabiseb (CR 55 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 105 (6 October 2022)
On review, the High Court substituted a guilty finding for housebreaking with intent to steal after the accused admitted that intention, and confirmed the sentence.
S v Setson (CR 31 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 69 (6 July 2022)
The sentence was defective as it did not require conviction for the suspended sentence to be activated; it was amended to include this requirement.
Source excerpt
S v Sheehandje (CR 19 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 41 (19 April 2022)
On review, the High Court substituted a guilty finding for housebreaking with intent to steal where the accused had admitted that was his true intent.
S v Ashipala (CR 14 of 2022; OSH-CRIMINALM 25 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 38 (8 April 2022)
On review, the court held that entering a garden did not amount to housebreaking. The conviction was altered to theft and the sentence reduced to a fine.
S v Lisias (CR 4 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 13 (23 February 2022)
The High Court corrected review-sheet errors to show both accused were convicted of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, and confirmed the 24-month sentences.
S v Tjivinda (CRIMINAL 32 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 215 (10 May 2021)
The sentences imposed by the magistrate, particularly on count one, were disproportionate to the accused's blameworthiness as insufficient weight was given to his status as a first offender and his guilty plea, and the cumulative effect of the sentences was not considered. The sentence on count one was therefore set aside and substituted, and part of the sentence on count two was ordered to run concurrently.
Source excerpt
S v Haraseb (4) (CRIMINAL 34 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 217 (10 May 2021)
On review, the High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after finding the record unclear, procedurally irregular, and insufficient to show a fair trial.
S v Sindimba (CRIMINAL 55 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 287 (9 May 2021)
On review, the High Court set aside a guilty-plea conviction and sentence because the magistrate did not question the accused on intent, an essential element of housebreaking.
Explore more
