S v Andreas (CR 4/2025) [2025] NAHCNLD 4 (20 January 2025)

S v Andreas (CR 4/2025) [2025] NAHCNLD 4 (20 January 2025)

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

Shape1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA NORTHERN LOCAL DIVISION, OSHAKATI

REVIEW JUDGMENT

PRACTICE DIRECTIVE 61

Case Title:

The State v Ruben Ningenisheni Andreas


Case No:

CR 4/2025


High Court NLD Review No.:

506/2023

Division of Court:

Northern Local Division

Heard before:

Salionga J et Kesslau J

Delivered on:

20 January 2025

Neutral citation: S v Andreas (CR 4/2025) [2025] NAHCNLD 4 (20 January 2025)


It is hereby ordered that:

  1. The verdict of guilty of ‘housebreaking with intent to steal and theft’ is hereby set aside and substituted with a verdict of guilty of ‘theft’.

  2. The sentence is confirmed.

Reasons for the order:

KESSLAU J (SALIONGA J concurring)


[1] The matter from the Magistrate’s court of Eenhana, is before this court for review in terms of s 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, as amended (the CPA).


[2] The accused was charged with housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft. He pleaded guilty and, after questioning by the magistrate in terms of s 112(1)(b) of the CPA, was convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.


[3] The accused was sentenced during August 2023. The review was received more than a month later during October 2023. The same month, I enquired from the magistrate how she convicted the accused on the charged offense, whilst her questioning did not include an enquiry into the intention of the accused whilst breaking into the property. I also made remarks regarding errors and omissions on the review cover sheet and record.


[4] On 3 January 2025 the same record was submitted to the Registrar without any explanation attached. The accused is by now either released from custody or a few days from being released, if he is serving the full term. The magistrate and by extension the Eenhana Magistrate’s Court neglected their duty which resulted in a failure of the review process.


[5] The offense of housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft consists of two parts being (a) housebreaking with the intent to steal and (b) theft. The intention to steal when breaking and entering the premises, is part of the allegations made by the State and should, during questioning, be covered independently from the elements of theft.1


[6] Considering the above, the magistrate could not have been satisfied that the accused admitted to all of the elements of the offense. In the result, the following orders are made:

  1. The verdict of guilty of ‘housebreaking with intent to steal and theft’ is hereby set aside and substituted with a verdict of guilty of ‘theft’.

  2. The sentence is confirmed.

Judge(s) signature

Comments:

KESSLAU J:


None


SALIONGA J:


None






1 S v Amunyela (CR 66/2021) [2021] NAHCMD 356 (05 August 2021); S v Blees (CR 08/2019) [2019] NAHCMD 10 (24 January 2019).

▲ To the top

Cited documents 2

Act 1
1. Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 1953 citations
Judgment 1
1. S v Blees (CRIMINAL 8 of 2019) [2019] NAHCMD 10 (24 January 2019) 1 citation

Documents citing this one 0