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 Hausiku (CC 29 of 2019) [2022] NAHCMD 508 (28 September 2022)
Sentencing decision for murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and traffic offences. The court imposed cumulative prison terms and departed from the rape minimum sentence.
S v Gemeng and Another (CC 20 of 2016) [2022] NAHCMD 214 (26 April 2022)
The High Court of Namibia imposed 18-year sentences on two accused convicted of rape, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the mandatory minimum.
S v Van Wyk and Another (4) (CC 17 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 253 (26 May 2021)
Sentencing judgment for rape under coercive circumstances. The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances and imposed 18 years’ imprisonment.
S v Lwishi (CA 92 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 336 (18 November 2011)
Appeal against sentence for stock theft partly succeeded. The High Court reduced a 20-year sentence to 10 years after finding the original sentence unduly harsh.
S v Huseb (CRIMINAL 95 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 316 (21 October 2011)
An appeal against a declaration of constitutional invalidity of legislation does not suspend the operation of the declaration unless the court making the order so directs. The sentence imposed by the magistrate was valid because the impugned provisions of the Stock Theft Act remained invalid despite the pending appeal.
Source excerpt
S v Coetzee (5) (Review Judgment) (CRIMINAL 62 of 2010) [2010] NAHC 97 (1 September 2010)
The High Court confirmed a stock-theft conviction but varied the sentence after finding the magistrate had not properly explained substantial and compelling circumstances to an undefended accused.
S v Amalovu and Another (CA 39 of 2003) [2005] NAHC 19 (28 June 2005)
The High Court confirmed two theft convictions but set aside the others and held that later convictions were not “previous convictions” for mandatory sentencing.
Peter v S [2020] NAHCMD 406 (1 June 2020)
The High Court is not competent to entertain a second application for leave to appeal and condonation after refusal of the first application; the applicant must petition the Supreme Court under Section 316(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
