NOT REPORTABLE 
HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
REVIEW JUDGMENT
Case no: CR 07/2019
In the matter between:
THE STATE
v
PEUNWELL DITCHABUE ACCUSED
(HIGH COURT MAIN DIVISION REVIEW REF NO. 1823/2018)
Neutral citation: S v Ditchabue (CR 07/2019) [2019] NAHCMD 9 (24 January 2019)
Coram: USIKU, J and UNENGU, AJ
Delivered: 24 January 2019
Flynote: Traffic offence – Reckless or negligent driving and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor – A duplication of convictions – Conviction and sentence of count 1 confirmed – Conviction and sentence on count 2 set aside.
Summary: The accused was charged with, convicted and sentenced for reckless or negligent driving on count 1 and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor as per count 2. The convictions amount to a duplication. Therefore, the conviction and sentence on count 1 – negligent driving are confirmed but the conviction and sentence on count 2 – driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor are set aside.
__________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
(i) The conviction of negligent driving in count 1 and the sentence of a fine of N$2000.00 or 6 months imprisonment in default of payment are confirmed.
(ii) The conviction and sentence of count 2 are set aside.
REVIEW JUDGMENT
UNENGU, AJ (USIKU, J concurring):
[1] This matter came before me on automatic review as provided for by s 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act1 (the CPA).
[2] The accused in the matter was charged with and convicted of the offence of reckless or negligent driving which is a contravention of s 80(1) read with sections 1, 49, 50, 51, 80(3), 86, 89, 106, 107 and 108 of the Road Traffic Transportation Act2 (the Act); and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, i.e. contravening s 82(1)(a) read with sections 1, 86, 89(1) and 89(4) of the Act.
[3] Seemingly, these offences were committed simultaneously through one act or conduct on one occasion by the accused.
[4] In the query addressed to the learned magistrate, I asked as to whether it was not a duplication of charges and whether the offences were committed during one action with a single intent? In her short response, the magistrate conceded and stated:
‘The offences were committed during one action with a single intention at the same occasion. It is indeed a splitting of charges’. I agree. It is rather a duplication of convictions.
[5] I must caution, however, in this jurisdiction the courts are more concerned with duplication of convictions, which must be guarded against.3
[6] It is clear from the answer to questions asked by the magistrate during the questioning in terms of s 112(1)(b) that the accused admitted the elements of negligent driving which could be the cause of the intoxicating liquor, namely the Whisky he consumed prior to him driving the motor-vehicle on the public road.
[7] In the result, the following order is made:
(i) The conviction of negligent driving in count 1 and the sentence of a fine of N$2000.00 or 6 months imprisonment in default of payment are confirmed.
(ii) The conviction and sentence of count 2 are set aside.
----------------------------------
E P UNENGU
Acting Judge
----------------------------------
D N USIKU
Judge
1 Act 51 of 1977 as amended.
2 Act 22 of 1999 as amended.
3 See S v Seibeb and Another and S v Eixab 1997 NR 254 (HC) where test was explained.