Prescription Act, 1969

This is the latest version of this Act.
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Citation
Act 68 of 1969
Date
15 July 1996
Language
English
Type
Legislation
Download
Download PDF (362.6 KB)
Related documents
Coat of Arms

Prescription Act, 1969

Act 68 of 1969

  1. [Amended by General Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Act 62 of 1973) on 1 December 1970]
  2. [Amended by General Law Amendment Act, 1975 (Act 57 of 1975) on 20 June 1975]
  3. [Amended by Native Laws Amendment Proclamation, 1979 (Proclamation AG3 of 1979) on 1 August 1978]
  4. [Amended by Married Persons Equality Act, 1996 (Act 1 of 1996) on 15 July 1996]
[APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 21 states “This Act and any amendment thereof which may be made from time to time, shall apply also in the territory of South West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel referred to in section 38(5) of the South West Africa Constitution Act, 1968 (Act No. 39 of 1968).”][TRANSFER TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Although this Act makes no reference to any minister, because of its subject matter it probably fell under the Executive Powers (Justice) Transfer Proclamation, AG 33 of 1979, dated 12 November 1979. Support for this assumption can be found in the fact that this Act is one of the laws listed in the South African Justice Laws Rationalisation Act 18 of 1996 (RSA GG 17129). If this assumption is correct, the only South African amending act after the date of transfer and prior to Namibian independence – the Prescription Amendment Act 11 of 1984 (RSA GG 9087)– did not apply to South West Africa because it was not made expressly so applicable.]ACTTo consolidate and amend the laws relating to prescription.(English text signed by the State President)BE IT ENACTED by the State President, the Senate and the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:-

Chapter I
Acquisition of Ownership by Prescription

1. Acquisition of ownership by prescription

Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and of Chapter IV, a person shall by prescription become the owner of a thing which he has possessed openly and as if he were the owner thereof for an uninterrupted period of thirty years or for a period which, together with any periods for which such thing was so possessed by his predecessors in title, constitutes an uninterrupted period of thirty years.

2. Involuntary loss of possession

The running of prescription shall not be interrupted by involuntary loss of possession if possession is regained at any time by means of legal proceedings instituted within six months after such loss for the purpose of regaining possession, or if possession is lawfully regained in any other way within one year after such loss.

3. Completion of prescription postponed in certain circumstances

(1)If -
(a)the person against whom the prescription is running is a minor or is insane, or is a person under curatorship, or is prevented by superior force from interrupting the running of prescription as contemplated in section 4; or[paragraph (a) amended by Act 1 of 1996]
(b)the person in favour of whom the prescription is running is outside the Republic (including the territory of South-West Africa), or is married to the person against whom the prescription is running, or is a member of the governing body of a juristic person against whom the prescription is running; and
(c)the period of prescription would, but for the provisions of this subsection, be completed before or on, or within three years after, the day on which the relevant impediment referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) has ceased to exist,
the period of prescription shall not be completed before the expiration of a period of three years after the day referred to in paragraph (c).
(2)Subject to the provisions of subsection (1), the period of prescription in relation to fideicommissary property shall not be completed against a fideicommissary before the expiration of a period of three years after the day on which the right of that fideicommissary to that property vested in him.

4. Judicial interruption of prescription

(1)The running of prescription shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), be interrupted by the service on the possessor of the thing in question of any process whereby any person claims ownership in that thing.
(2)Any interruption in terms of subsection (1) shall lapse, and the running of prescription shall not be deemed to have been interrupted, if the person claiming ownership in the thing in question does not successfully prosecute his claim under the process in question to final judgment or if he does so prosecute his claim but abandons the judgment or the judgment is set aside.
(3)If the running of prescription is interrupted as contemplated in subsection (1), a new period of prescription shall commence to run, if at all, only on the day on which final judgment is given.
(4)For the purposes of this section “process” includes a petition, a notice of motion, a rule nisi and any document whereby legal proceedings are commenced.

5. Application of this Chapter to a prescription not completed at the commencement of this Act

A prescription which has not been completed at the commencement of this Act, shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter in respect of the course of the unexpired portion of the period of prescription.

Chapter II
Acquisition and Extinction of Servitudes by Prescription

6. Acquisition of servitudes by prescription

Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and of Chapter IV, a person shall acquire a servitude by prescription if he has openly and as though he were entitled to do so, exercised the rights and powers which a person who has a right to such servitude is entitled to exercise, for an uninterrupted period of thirty years or, in the case of a praedial servitude, for a period which, together with any periods for which such rights and powers were so exercised by his predecessors in title, constitutes an uninterrupted period of thirty years.

7. Extinction of servitudes by prescription

(1)A servitude shall be extinguished by prescription if it has not been exercised for an uninterrupted period of thirty years.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a negative servitude shall be deemed to be exercised as long as nothing which impairs the enjoyment of the servitude, has been done on the servient tenement.

8. Application of certain provisions of Chapter I to the acquisition and extinction of servitudes by prescription

(1)The provisions of sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the acquisition of a servitude by prescription.
(2)The provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the extinction of a servitude by prescription.
(3)For the purposes of the application of the provisions of section 4(1) in relation to the acquisition or extinction of a servitude by prescription, any reference therein to the possessor of the thing shall be construed as a reference to the person in whose favour the prescription is running; and any reference therein to a claim to the ownership in the thing shall be construed as a reference to a claim for the termination of the exercise of the rights and powers or of the breach of the servitude, as the case may be, by virtue of which the prescription is running.

9. This Chapter not applicable to public servitudes

The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to public servitudes.

Chapter III
Prescription of Debts

10. Extinction of debts by prescription

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and of Chapter IV, a debt shall be extinguished by prescription after the lapse of the period which in terms of the relevant law applies in respect of the prescription of such debt.
(2)By the prescription of a principal debt a subsidiary debt which arose from such principal debt shall also be extinguished by prescription.
(3)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2), payment by the debtor of a debt after it has been extinguished by prescription in terms of either of the said subsections, shall be regarded as payment of a debt.

11. Periods of prescription of debts

The periods of prescription of debts shall be the following:
(a)thirty years in respect of -
(i)any debt secured by mortgage bond;
(ii)any judgment debt;
(iii)any debt in respect of any taxation imposed or levied by or under any law;
(iv)any debt owed to the State in respect of any share of the profits, royalties or any similar consideration payable in respect of the right to mine minerals or other substances;
(b)fifteen years in respect of any debt owed to the State and arising out of an advance or loan of money or a sale or lease of land by the State to the debtor, unless a longer period applies in respect of the debt in question in terms of paragraph (a);
(c)six years in respect of a debt arising from a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument or from a notarial contract, unless a longer period applies in respect of the debt in question in terms of paragraph (a) or (b);
(d)save where an Act of Parliament provides otherwise, three years in respect of any other debt.

12. When prescription begins to run

(1)Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), prescription shall commence to run as soon as the debt is due.
(2)If the debtor wilfully prevents the creditor from coming to know of the existence of the debt, prescription shall not commence to run until the creditor becomes aware of the existence of the debt.
(3)A debt which does not arise from contract shall not be deemed to be due until the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises: Provided that a creditor shall be deemed to have such knowledge if he could have acquired it by exercising reasonable care.[Section 12(3) was amended in South Africa prior to Namibian independence by the Prescription Amendment Act 11 of 1984 (RSA GG 9087) which was not made expressly applicable to South West Africa. This amendment removed the phrase “which does not arise from contract” from section 12(3). This amendment does not appear to have been applicable to South West Africa, but it should be noted that two Namibian court cases have assumed (without discussion) that the version of section 12(3) applicable in Namibia is the one amended by the Prescription Amendment Act 11 of 1984:][Seaflower Whitefish Corporation v Namibian Ports Authority 1998 NR 316 (HC) at 322B-E states: “The relevant section of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, is s 12 and the relevant portions of that section are as follows:][‘(1) Subject to the provisions of ss (2) and (3), prescription shall commence to run as soon as the debt is due.][. . .][(3) A debt shall not be deemed to be due until the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises: Provided that a creditor shall be deemed to have such knowledge if he could have acquired it by exercising reasonable care.’”][Wellman v Hollard InsuranceCo of Namibia Ltd 2013 (2) NR 568 (HC) at paragraph 78 applies section 12(3) to a contractual debt, which would be possible only if the court was assuming that section 12(3) applies as amended by Act 11 of 1984.]

13. Completion of prescription delayed in certain circumstances

(1)If -
(a)the creditor is a minor or is insane or is a person under curatorship or is prevented by superior force including any law or any order of court from interrupting the running of prescription as contemplated in section 15(1); or
(b)the debtor is outside the Republic (including the territory of South-West Africa); or
(c)the creditor and debtor are married to each other; or
(d)the creditor and debtor are partners and the debt is a debt which arose out of the partnership relationship; or
(e)the creditor is a juristic person and the debtor is a member of the governing body of such juristic person; or
(f)the debt is the object of a dispute subjected to arbitration; or
(g)the debt is the object of a claim filed against the estate of a debtor who is deceased or against the insolvent estate of the debtor or against a company in liquidation or against an applicant under the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966 (Act No. 28 of 1966), or the Farmers’ Assistance Ordinance, 1962 (Ordinance No. 11 of 1962, of the territory of South-West Africa); or[The Agricultural Credit Act 28 of 1966 (RSA) was repealed by the Agricultural Bank Amendment Act 27 of 1991 (RSA). The Farmers’ Assistance Ordinance 11 of 1962 (SWA) was repealed by the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act 66 of 1970 (RSA).]
(h)the creditor or the debtor is deceased and an executor of the estate in question has not yet been appointed; and
(i)the relevant period of prescription would, but for the provisions of this subsection, be completed before or on, or within one year after, the day on which the relevant impediment referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) has ceased to exist,
the period of prescription shall not be completed before a year has elapsed after the day referred to in paragraph (i).
(2)A debt which arises from a contract and which would, but for the provisions of this subsection, become prescribed before a reciprocal debt which arises from the same contract becomes prescribed, shall not become prescribed before the reciprocal debt becomes prescribed.

14. Interruption of prescription by acknowledgement of liability

(1)The running of prescription shall be interrupted by an express or tacit acknowledgement of liability by the debtor.
(2)If the running of prescription is interrupted as contemplated in subsection (1), prescription shall commence to run afresh from the day on which the interruption takes place or, if at the time of the interruption or at any time thereafter the parties postpone the due date of the debt, from the date upon which the debt again becomes due.

15. Judicial interruption of prescription

(1)The running of prescription shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), be interrupted by the service on the debtor of any process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt.
(2)Unless the debtor acknowledges liability, the interruption of prescription in terms of subsection (1) shall lapse, and the running of prescription shall not be deemed to have been interrupted, if the creditor does not successfully prosecute his claim under the process in question to final judgment or if he does so prosecute his claim but abandons the judgment or the judgment is set aside.
(3)If the running of prescription is interrupted as contemplated in subsection (1) and the debtor acknowledges liability, and the creditor does not prosecute his claim to final judgment, prescription shall commence to run afresh from the day on which the debtor acknowledges liability or, if at the time when the debtor acknowledges liability or at any time thereafter the parties postpone the due date of the debt, from the day upon which the debt again becomes due.
(4)If the running of prescription is interrupted as contemplated in subsection (1) and the creditor successfully prosecutes his claim under the process in question to final judgment and the interruption does not lapse in terms of subsection (2), prescription shall commence to run afresh on the day on which the judgment of the court becomes executable.
(5)If any person is joined as a defendant on his own application, the process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt shall be deemed to have been served on such person on the date of such joinder.
(6)For the purposes of this section, “process” includes a petition, a notice of motion, a rule nisi, a pleading in reconvention, a third party notice referred to in any rule of court, and any document whereby legal proceedings are commenced.

16. Application of this Chapter

(1)Subject to the provisions of subsection (2)(b), the provisions of this chapter shall, save in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of any Act of Parliament which prescribes a specified period within which a claim is to be made or an action is to be instituted in respect of a debt or imposes conditions on the institution of an action for the recovery of a debt, apply to any debt arising after the commencement of this Act.
(2)The provisions of any law -
(a)which immediately before the commencement of this Act applied to the prescription of a debt which arose before such commencement; or
(b)which, if this Act had not come into operation, would have applied to the prescription of a debt which arose or arises out of an advance or loan of money by an insurer to any person in respect of an insurance policy issued by such insurer before 1 January 1974,
shall continue to apply to the prescription of the debt in question in all respects as if this Act had not come into operation.[section 16 substituted by Act 62 of 1973 and amended by Act 57 of 1975]

Chapter IV
General

17. Prescription to be raised in pleadings

(1)A court shall not of its own motion take notice of prescription.
(2)A party to litigation who invokes prescription, shall do so in the relevant document filed of record in the proceedings: Provided that a court may allow prescription to be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

18. Laws prohibiting acquisition of land or any right in land by prescription not affected by this Act

The provisions of this Act shall not affect the provisions of any law prohibiting the acquisition of land or any right in land by prescription.

19. This Act binds the State

This Act shall bind the State.

20. This Act not applicable where Black law applies

In so far as any right or obligation of any person against any other person is governed by Black law, the provisions of this Act shall not apply.[terminology amended by AG 3 of 1979]

21. Application to South-West Africa

This Act and any amendment thereof which may be made from time to time, shall apply also in the territory of South-West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel referred to in section 38(5) of the South-West Africa Constitution Act, 1968 (Act No. 39 of 1968).

22. Repeal of laws

Subject to the provisions of section 16(2), the laws mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent set out in the third column of that Schedule.

23. Short title and commencement

This Act shall be called the Prescription Act, 1969, and shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Schedule

Laws Repealed

No. and year of Law. Title. Extent of Repeal.
Act No. 18 of 1943 Prescription Act, 1943 The whole.
Act No. 46 of 1945 Finance Act, 1945 Sections 27, 28, 29 and 30.
Act No. 62 of 1955 General Law Amendment Act, 1955 Section 23.
Act No. 50 of 1956 General Law Amendment Act, 1956 Section 16.
Act No. 80 of 1964 General Law Amendment Act, 1964 Section 6.
Proclamation No. 13 of 1943 of the Administrator of South-West Africa Prescription Proclamation, 1943 The whole.
Proclamation No. 17 of 1944 of the Administrator of South-West Africa Prescription Amendment Proclamation, 1944 The whole.
Ordinance No. 36 of 1965 of South-West Africa General Law Amendment Ordinance, 1965 Section 3.
▲ To the top

History of this document

15 July 1996 this version
01 August 1978
20 June 1975
01 December 1970
Commences.
04 June 1969
23 May 1969
Assented to.
Cited documents 4
  1. Agricultural Credit Act, 1966
  2. General Law Amendment Act, 1955
  3. General Law Amendment Act, 1956
  4. General Law Amendment Act, 1964
Documents citing this one 116
  1. Agnes Kahimbi Kashela v Katima Mulilo Town Council and Others (SA 15 of 2017) [2018] NASC 409 (16 November 2018)
  2. APB Property Services v Municipal Council of Windhoek (1335 of 2017) [2022] NAHCMD 426 (22 August 2022)
  3. Arangies v Neves and Others (SA 16 of 2017) [2019] NASC 12 (27 May 2019)
  4. Aspects of Family Law: The Abolition of Marital Power and Equalization of Rights between Spouses
  5. Aussenkehr Farms (Pty) Ltd v Namibia Development Corporation Ltd (SA 23 of 2010) [2012] NASC 15 (13 August 2012)
  6. Bank Windhoek v Kessler (1731 of 2000) [2001] NAHC 20 (1 June 2001)
  7. Beukes and Another v President of Republic of Namibia and and Others (2) (83 of 2014; I 427 of 2013) [2021] NAHCMD 129 (25 March 2021)
  8. Board of Incorporators of African Episcopal Church and Others v Kooper and Others (2) (I 3244 of 2014) [2019] NAHCMD 139 (6 May 2019)
  9. Botes v McLean and Others (853 of 2014) [2019] NAHCMD 330 (2 September 2019)
  10. Bruni v Yatsua Investments CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 2204 of 2020) [2020] NAHCMD 571 (7 December 2020)
  11. Coetzee v TransNamib Holdings Ltd (3841 of 2012) [2015] NAHCMD 231 (10 January 2015)
  12. Commercial Bank of Namibia Ltd v Grobler (1044 of 1999) [2001] NAHC 30 (20 August 2001)
  13. Council of Itireleng Village and Another v Madi and Others (SA 21 of 2016) [2017] NASC 39 (25 October 2017)
  14. COVID-19 Regulations
  15. Desert Wear CC and Others v Chairperson of Council of Municipality of Swakopmund and Others ([P]APPEAL 287 of 2014) [2021] NAHCMD 602 (18 March 2021)
  16. Directions relating to judicial proceedings during the COVID-19 state of emergency
  17. Discussion Paper on Issues relating to the Insolvency Act, 1936
  18. Dumeni v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (Ruling) (1588 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 137 (22 May 2018)
  19. Empire Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd v Dumeni and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 191 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 76 (24 February 2022)
  20. Festus v Minister of Health and Social Services (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 77 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 406 (12 August 2022)
  21. Fillipus v Government of Republic of Namibia (1598 of 2013) [2016] NAHCMD 238 (18 August 2016)
  22. Fregrega v Spy Motor Spare and Garage CC (HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-CON 3 of 2022) [2022] NAHCNLD 78 (15 August 2022)
  23. Gariseb v Reimann (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 3904 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 533 (16 November 2021)
  24. Gibeon Village Council v Uaaka & Others (HC-MD-LAB-APP-AAA 44 of 2020) [2021] NALCMD 3 (4 February 2021)
  25. Gravato NO and Another v Redelinghuys (APPEAL 401 of 2009) [2012] NAHC 6 (20 January 2012)
  26. Hangula v Shirunda (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 4553 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 553 (14 October 2022)
  27. Hartzenberg v Standard Bank Namibia Limited (Appeal Judgment) (SA 57 of 2014) [2015] NASC 26 (13 November 2015)
  28. Hausiku v Likuwa (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3475 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 494 (26 October 2021)
  29. H.A.W. Retailers CC t/a Ark Trading v Swartbooi (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 664 of 2019) [2020] NAHCMD 89 (10 March 2020)
  30. H Charny & Company (Pty) Ltd v Segall & Matheson Properties (1201 of 1995) [1995] NAHC 19 (20 September 1995)
  31. Ilse v Government Institutions Pension Fund and Another (1929 of 2012) [2014] NAHCMD 122 (4 April 2014)
  32. Jarman v Morkel (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 1046 of 2020) [2022] NAHCMD 327 (1 July 2022)
  33. Kamushinda v President of Republic of Namibia (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 105 of 2019) [2020] NAHCMD 493 (29 October 2020)
  34. Kamwi v Trustco Group International Ltd and Others (3235 of 2010) [2011] NAHC 361 (15 December 2011)
  35. Kapuka v Haufiku (4086 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 178 (14 June 2018)
  36. Katjomuise v Negonga (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 1594 of 2020) [2023] NAHCMD 61 (17 February 2023)
  37. Kaxuxuena v Hot Shoot Trading CC (HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-CON 116 of 2021) [2022] NAHCNLD 29 (28 March 2022)
  38. Kehrmann v Gradtke (25 of 2016) [2018] NAHCMD 141 (1 February 2018)
  39. Kruger v Transnamib Ltd (Air Namibia) and Others (SA 3 of 1995) [1996] NASC 3 (7 February 1996)
  40. Leonard v Oshana Security Services CC (HC-NLD-LAB-APP-AAA-2021/00006) [2023] NAHCNLD 1 (17 April 2023)
  41. Lisse v Minister of Health And Social Services (SA 75 of 2011) [2014] NASC 24 (12 December 2014)
  42. Lisse v Ministry of Health and Social Services (3891 of 2008) [2011] NAHC 248 (23 August 2011)
  43. Local Authorities Act, 1992
  44. Louw v Strauss (1) (394 of 2016) [2017] NAHCMD 217 (9 August 2017)
  45. Louw v Strauss (2) (3949 of 2016) [2018] NAHCMD 177 (14 June 2018)
  46. Luckyhoff v Municipality of Gobabis (LCA 46 of 2014) [2016] NALCMD 6 (2 March 2016)
  47. Married Persons Equality Act, 1996
  48. Mbelle Panel Beaters & Transport CC v Willemse (HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-OTH 11 of 2017) [2018] NAHCNLD 21 (12 March 2018)
  49. McLean and Others v Botes (SA 54 of 2019) [2022] NASC 16 (17 May 2022)
  50. Merlus Seafood Processors (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Finance (APPEAL 417 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 331 (11 November 2011)
  51. Mineworkers Union of Namibia v Namdeb Diamond Corporation (Pty) Ltd (HC-MD-LAB-MOT-GEN 227 of 2020) [2022] NALCMD 33 (8 June 2022)
  52. Minister of Home Affairs and Immigration v Madjiet and Others (SA 9 of 2005) [2007] NASC 7 (27 November 2007)
  53. Municipal Council of Windhoek v Telecom Namibia Limited (SA 24 of 2013) [2015] NASC 2 (2 March 2015)
  54. Myburgh v Commercial Bank of Namibia (1) (6 of 1998) [1999] NAHC 6 (30 July 1999)
  55. Nahum and Another v Ambole and Others (HC-NLD-CIV-ACT-CON 32 of 2021) [2022] NAHCNLD 37 (5 April 2022)
  56. Nailenge v Correctional Service Officer (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH- 4734 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 313 (1 July 2021)
  57. Namibia Development Corporation v Mwandingi and Others (82 of 2009) [2014] NALCMD 42 (17 October 2014)
  58. Namibia Development Corporation v Mwandingi and Others (LCA 87 of 2009) [2012] NALC 41 (3 December 2012)
  59. Namibia Electrical Services CC v P D Theron & Associates and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 4238 of 2018) [2021] NAHCMD 230 (11 May 2021)
  60. Namibia Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority Act, 2021
  61. Namibia Government Gazette dated 1990-10-10 number 90
  62. Namibia Government Gazette dated 1992-08-31 number 470
  63. Namibia Government Gazette dated 1996-05-28 number 1316
  64. Namibia Government Gazette dated 1998-09-23 number 1961
  65. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2000-11-27 number 2443
  66. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2014-01-17 number 5392
  67. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2018-04-24 number 6578
  68. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2020-03-28 number 7159
  69. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2020-03-31 number 7160
  70. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2020-04-28 number 7194
  71. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2021-10-01 number 7646
  72. Namibia Government Gazette dated 2022-12-29 number 7990
  73. Nangolo v Imene (3515 of 2016) [2018] NAHCMD 109 (20 April 2018)
  74. Nardi S.P.A v Bauman & Meier Workshop CC (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL 29 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 426 (3 September 2021)
  75. National Transport Services Holding Company Act, 1998
  76. Nedbank Namibia Limited v Emvula (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 399 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 591 (28 October 2022)
  77. Nedbank Namibia Ltd v Namibian Tuberculosis Association and Others (820 of 2007) [2012] NAHC 324 (30 November 2012)
  78. Nedbank v Pro-Housing CC (2119 of 2012) [2016] NAHCMD 33 (24 February 2016)
  79. Negonga v Nampost Limited (1174 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 212 (13 July 2018)
  80. Negonga v Nampost Limited (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH 1174 of 2017) [2018] NAHCMD 60 (15 March 2018)
  81. Nekwiyu v Minister of Health and Social Services and Another (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 1252 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 251 (24 May 2021)
  82. Neves and Another v Arangies and Another (1) (3785 of 2012) [2013] NAHCMD 135 (20 May 2013)
  83. Neves and Another v Arangies and Another (2) (3785 of 2012) [2017] NAHCMD 57 (3 March 2017)
  84. Okorusu Fluorspar (Pty) Ltd & Another v Tanaka Trading CC and Another (2055 of 2013) [2016] NAHCMD 16 (5 February 2016)
  85. Olivier v Olivier (1784 of 2016) [2018] NAHCMD 223 (20 July 2018)
  86. Omaruru Municipality Council v Ganaseb (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL 2947 of 2017) [2020] NAHCMD 22 (16 January 2020)
  87. Ongopolo Mining Limited v Uris Safari Lodge (Pty) Ltd and Others (3544 of 2010) [2014] NAHCMD 55 (19 February 2014)
  88. Pickering v Minister of Veterans Affairs (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 3916 of 2019) [2020] NAHCMD 573 (30 November 2020)
  89. Riruako v University of Namibia and Others (APPEAL 129 of 2010) [2016] NAHCMD 168 (14 June 2016)
  90. Roads Contractor Company v Nambahu and Others (97 of 2009) [2011] NALC 23 (12 August 2011)
  91. Seagull All-Fish CC v Tuyeni Kumwe Food and Commodity Distributors CC and Others (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON 2833 of 2017) [2019] NAHCMD 135 (24 April 2019)
  92. Shaama v Roux (51 of 2011) [2014] NALCMD 39 (30 September 2014)
  93. Shambo v Amukugo (3744 of 2014) [2015] NAHCMD 244 (10 September 2015)
  94. Shiimi v City of Windhoek (1610 of 2016) [2017] NAHCMD 288 (27 September 2017)
  95. Shilomboleni v Muetudhana (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON 4580 of 2017) [2019] NAHCMD 266 (25 July 2019)
  96. Shooya v Shambo (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON- 1509 of 2022) [2023] NAHCMD 38 (8 February 2023)
  97. Shoprite Namibia (Pty) Ltd v Haoses and Another (18 of 2014) [2014] NALCMD 46 (26 November 2014)
  98. Sindlgruber v Hessel-Enke (SA 63 of 2015) [2017] NASC 41 (8 November 2017)
  99. Sky Dancer CC v Windhoek Flight Training Centre (1238 of 2016) [2018] NAHCMD 138 (14 May 2018)
  100. Social Security Commission v Mutwa (LCA 56 of 2014) [2016] NALCMD 2 (18 January 2016)
  101. South Bakels (Pty) Ltd v Quality products and Another (1769 of 2006) [2008] NAHC 1 (25 June 2008)
  102. Suspension of Operation of Provisions of Certain Laws and Ancillary Matters Regulations
  103. S v Gonyoro and Others (CR 1 of 2021) [2021] NAHCMD 3 (20 January 2021)
  104. Swakop Uranium v Employees of Swakopm Uranium as Per Schedule Annexure 'POC1' and Others (SA 70 of 2020) [2022] NASC 36 (14 November 2022)
  105. Teek v Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources and Others (2112 of 2010) [2017] NAHCMD 89 (17 March 2017)
  106. Tjamuaha and Another v Master of High Court and Others (SA 63 of 2015) [2017] NASC 40 (26 October 2017)
  107. Tjamuaha v Master of the High Court (APPEAL 314 of 2011) [2015] NAHCMD 245 (10 December 2015)
  108. Tjipangandjara v Namibia Water Corporation Limited (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 4068 of 2021) [2023] NAHCMD 12 (27 January 2023)
  109. Transnamib Limited v Poolman and Others (SA 6 of 1999) [1999] NASC 4 (17 November 1999)
  110. Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd v Atlanta Cinema CC and Others (3268 of 2010; 370 of 2012) [2022] NAHCMD 49 (11 February 2022)
  111. Vaats v Metje & Ziecler Ltd t/a Audi Centre (1402 of 2000) [2001] NAHC 15 (30 April 2001)
  112. Van Straten N.O and Another v Namibia Financial Institutions and Another (19 of 2014) [2016] NASC 10 (8 June 2016)
  113. Von Luttichau and Others v Van Straten N.O. and Others (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN 301 of 2021) [2022] NAHCMD 365 (26 July 2022)
  114. Wellmann v Hollard Insurance Company of Namibia Limited (858 of 2010) [2012] NAHC 232 (15 August 2012)
  115. Wessels NO v Aussenkhr farms (Pty) Ltd (1343 of 2000) [2012] NAHC 255 (4 October 2012)
  116. Zhang v Government of Republic of Namibia (3119 of 2007) [2010] NAHC 127 (4 October 2010)