S v Gawaseb and Others (CA 117/2003) [2008] NAHC 79 (09 June 2008);

Group

Full judgment
CASE NO

CASE NO. CA 117/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

In the matter between:

GEORGE GAWASEB 1ST APPLICANT
ELIFAS NGHIPANDULWA 2ND APPLICANT
JEREMIA GEORGE 3RD APPLICANT

versus

STATE    RESPONDENT

CORAM:   MANYARARA, A.J.

Heard on:                 2008.06.09
Delivered on:    2008.06.09
Reasons on:               2008.07.29
______________________________________________________________________
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
REASONS
MANYARARA, A.J.:         [1]      This is an application for leave to appeal against dismissal by this Court of the appeals from the judgment of the magistrate’s Court by which the magistrates Court convicted the applicants of armed robbery committed with common purpose and

sentenced them to terms of imprisonment of 10 years for the first applicant and 20 years each for the second and third applicants.

[2]      The judgment against which the applicants sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was handed down on 15 March 2005 and the applicants wrote letters dated 28 and 29 June 2005 and 29 December 2005 expressing their dissatisfaction with the appeal judgment.

[3]      The first problem with the alleged letters is that only the last mentioned letter bears the registrar’s stamp dated 9 January 2006 and the Court assumed that this should be taken as the date on which the application for leave to appeal was filed, although the letter did not meet the requirements of a notice of the application.

[4]      The applicants’ second difficulty was that the presumed “Notice of appeal” was filed inordinately late and not accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of the late noting of the appeal.

[5]      At the hearing, Mr Sibeya for the State took in limine the two points referred to above, to which the applicants had no answer. Mr Sibeya also addressed the Court on the merits and submitted that he saw no reason why the Court should depart from the reasons given in the judgment dismissing the appeals.


[6]      The applicants contended otherwise but there was no substance in the contention.

[7]      It is for the above reasons that at the hearing condonation and the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court were refused.

________________
MANYARARA, A.J


















ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS                        In-Person

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT                             Mr Sibeya
Instructed by:            Office of the Prosecutor-General

Download