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 Dentlinger (SCR 1 of 2022) [2022] NASC 9 (25 March 2022)
The Supreme Court corrected a High Court sentencing order after finding it had no power to antedate a substituted sentence where no part of the original sentence had been served.
Arangies and Another v Unitrans Namibia (PTY) LTD and Another (1 of 2018) [2018] NASC 401 (27 July 2018)
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court status-hearing order for procedural irregularity, but refused leave to file late witness statements and video evidence.
Beukes v Benade and Another (Appeal Judgment) (SA 15 of 2005) [2018] NASC 11 (13 April 2018)
The appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court as the order appealed against was interlocutory and no leave to appeal had been obtained as required by law. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its review jurisdiction as no irregularity warranting intervention was established and alternative remedies were available to the appellant.
Source excerpt
S v Olivier and Another (CRIMINAL 16 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 53 (23 February 2011)
On special review, the High Court corrected an immigration sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum and substituted the conviction and sentence.
S v Malumo (2) (4 of 2010) [2010] NASC 10 (14 September 2010)
The Supreme Court declined to exercise review jurisdiction under section 16 of the Supreme Court Act, 1990, as no irregularity in the proceedings was established. The Court held that rulings on the admissibility of evidence are interlocutory, alterable by the trial court, and not appealable under section 316A of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, prior to conclusion of trial except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present. The State's petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Source excerpt
S v Nekongo and Another (CRIMINAL 47 of 2010) [2010] NAHC 95 (24 August 2010)
The High Court confirmed a robbery and attempted murder conviction, holding that sentencing on all counts should occur before review and remitting the matter for sentencing on count two.
S v Kake (CRIMINAL 135 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 70 (7 September 2007)
The sentences imposed by the magistrate were grossly disproportionate compared to similar cases, creating a brutal imbalance and inconsistency in sentencing, justifying interference by the reviewing court.
Source excerpt
S v Bushebi (SCR 1 of 1995) [1996] NASC 4 (12 February 1996)
The Supreme Court refused the State’s review application, holding that a High Court mistake of law was not an irregularity and did not justify setting aside the acquittal.
S v Hoviaseb and Others (1) (CRIMINAL 181 of 1994) [1995] NAHC 20 (16 October 1995)
The High Court declined to review convictions for a traditional council whipping, citing delay, finality, and the modest wholly suspended sentence.
Explore more
