CASE NO.: CC 20/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

In the matter between:

and

LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT

a)	Several letters to the Registrar referring to the court record which is apparently required by the Directorate of Legal Affairs;
b)	Letters to Willem Peter (accused) and Gert Nuxabeb (accused) from the Directorate of Legal Affairs informing them that their applications for legal aid had been received and that the court record is required in order to make an informed decision regarding their respective appeals;

c)	Heads of argument by Willem Peter and heads of argument by the State.

[2] There is nothing before me to indicate that accused 3-5 intended to appeal. I do not have any notice of appeal with grounds of appeal or any application for condonation for the late notice of their appeals. Although the condonation application before me may refer to we or us IT is neither signed by any of them, nor did they depose to any supporting affidavit. I can consequently not attend to anything purporting to relate to an appeal by any of accused 3, 4 and 5. Although they appeared today in person I informed them of this and let them leave the dock.

[4] The supporting affidavit to his application for condonation has not properly been deposed to. It is not a proper affidavit. Willem Peter did not sign it. All that appears on the end of the affidavit is the name of accused 2, namely Willem Peter and others. As mentioned, the Commissioner of Oaths used the same words, but did not say that Willem Peter signed the statement and took the oath. However, I shall accept that Willem Peter (accused2) understood and declared what is contained in that document.
[5] It is trite that an application for condonation is with the discretion of the court to condone non-compliance of the Rules of Court, if satisfied with the explanation for the delay and if there are prospects of success.

[7] The application for condonation is rejected on the ground of a lack of an acceptable explanation for the delay. The question of prospects of success does not have to be considered any further. However, considering the submissions made in the heads of argument and the court's judgment's on conviction and sentence, there are in my opinion no prospects of success that another court may come to another conclusion.

[8]     In the result, the late notice of appeal of Willem Peter is not condoned.

MULLER, J

On behalf of the Appellant:			In Person

On behalf of the Respondent: 			Mr Campher 

Instructed By:					Office of the Prosecutor-General