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