S v Inanseb (CRIMINAL 44 of 2011) [2011] NAHC 143 (26 May 2011)

CASE NO. CR 44/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between: THE STATE versus GODLIEB INANSEB ACCUSED HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO. 372/2010 CORAM: SWANEPOEL, J et SIBOLEKA, J Delivered on: 26 May 2011 ___________________________________________________________________________ REVIEW JUDGMENT SWANEPOEL, J.: [1] The accused was convicted in the magistrate’s court held at Kamanjab on a charge of theft and sentenced as follows: “One thousand Namibian dollars Fine (N$1000-00) or in default of payment twelve (12) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of three (3) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of Theft during the period of suspension.” [2] Mainga J (as he than was) addressed the following remark to the learned magistrate: “1. In both case nos 314/2009 and 10/2010 the words committed are omitted in the sentence. Doesn’t the omission render the sentence useless? See R v Cloete 1950(4) SA 191E at 192F-G” The learned magistrate replied as follows: “I concur with the Honourable Reviewing Judge that the word COMMITTED is omitted in the sentence on both cases, and I further concur that this renders the sentence useless.” He requested the Reviewing Judge to insert the word “committed” in the respective sentences. [3] In the premises the conviction is confirmed and the sentence is substituted with the following: One thousand Namibian dollars fine (N$1000-00) or in default of payment twelve (12) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of three (3) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of theft committed during the period of suspension. __________________ SWANEPOEL, J I agree __________________ SIBOLEKA, J