3
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA, MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
REVIEW JUDGMENT
PRACTICE DIRECTION 61
Case Title: The State v Lionel Natangwe Lodewyk | Case No: CR 40/2024 | |
High Court MD Review No:611/2024 | Division of Court: High Court, Main Division | |
Coram: Shivute J et Christiaan J | Delivered: 17 May 2024 | |
Neutral citation: S v Lodewyk (CR 40/2024) [2024] NAHCMD 235 (17 May 2024) | ||
ORDER:
| ||
REASONS FOR ORDERS: | ||
CHRISTIAAN J (SHIVUTE J concurring): [1] This matter comes before this court on special review as transmitted by the district magistrate Grootfontein to have the proceedings of 2 April 2024 reviewed and set aside. The reasons for this will become apparent as the judgment unfolds. [2] The accused was arraigned with one other accused, in the magistrate’s court for the district of Grootfontein on a charge of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft to which charge he pleaded not guilty on 23 September 2021 and elected to conduct his own defence. [3] On account of various postponements for reasons not material for purposes of this judgment, the accused appeared before the court a quo again on 2 April 2024. His case was separated from that of his co-accused upon which, he tendered a guilty plea and subsequently sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. [4] According to the court a quo, it only came to realise that in fact, the accused had already pleaded not guilty before a different magistrate on 23 September 2021. Although the cover letter to which the special review is attached indicates that the initial plea was taken on 9 September 2021, the record shows otherwise. As per the record, there was in in fact, a not guilty plea tendered on 23 September 2021. This notwithstanding, the court a quo takes cognizance of its oversight and acknowledges the fact that the correct procedure to have been followed in the circumstances was to proceed with trial and not allow the accused to plead to the charge again. [5] It goes without saying that, an accused person is not allowed to plead twice to the same charge in the same case1. What transpired in the present instance is an irregularity which vitiates the proceedings and which cannot be allowed to stand. It follows therefore, that the proceedings of 2 April 2024 cannot be allowed to stand and must be reviewed and set aside and the correct procedure followed. [6] In the result, it is ordered as follows:
| ||
P CHRISTIAAN JUDGE | N N SHIVUTE JUDGE | |
1 S v Witbooi (CR 62/2022) [2022] NAHCMD 324 (29 June 2022).