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 Jerobeam (CC 6 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 281 (7 June 2021)
The accused was informed of his rights in a language he understood, the process was regular, and the statement was made voluntarily without duress. The objections raised were found to be without merit or fabricated, and the warning statement is admissible.
Source excerpt
S v Schiefer (1) (CC 17 of 2008) [2011] NAHC 240 (10 August 2011)
The High Court of Namibia held that the accused’s confession was admissible after a trial-within-a-trial on voluntariness and alleged denial of rights.
S v Kapiya (CC 25 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 181 (20 June 2011)
The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was informed in clear and unambiguous terms of his right to remain silent; therefore, the warning statement was not made freely and voluntarily and is inadmissible.
Source excerpt
S v Malumo and Others (9) (CC 32 of 2001) [2011] NAHC 104 (7 April 2011)
The High Court held that a pointing-out by Accused No. 55 was inadmissible because rights were not properly explained, legal aid was not adequately addressed, and no interpreter was used despite the request.
S v Malumo and Others (5) (CC 32 of 2001) [2010] NAHCMD 1 (1 March 2010)
The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions and admissions were made freely and voluntarily, as required by law. The accused were not adequately informed of their right to legal representation, including legal aid, and magistrates failed to investigate allegations of coercion or clarify ambivalent answers. These failures constitute fatal irregularities and violations of the right to a fair trial, rendering all the statements inadmissible.
Source excerpt
S v Tjihorero and Another (CA 21 of 1993) [1993] NAHC 8 (29 October 1993)
High Court of Namibia appeal on the admissibility of confessions, holding one statement inadmissible for undue influence and upholding the other.
S v Ndikwetepo and Others (1) (CC 61 of 1992) [1992] NAHC 2 (6 July 1992)
High Court ruling in a trial within a trial on whether statements by accused nos. 3, 4 and 7 were voluntary and admissible.
Explore more
