CASE NO. CR 44/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

In the matter between:

THE STATE

versus

GODLIEB INANSEB ACCUSED

HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO. 372/2010

CORAM: SWANEPOEL, J et SIBOLEKA, J

Delivered on: 26 May 2011

___________________________________________________________________________

REVIEW JUDGMENT

SWANEPOEL, J.: [1] The accused was convicted in the magistrate’s court held at Kamanjab on a charge of theft and sentenced as follows:

“One thousand Namibian dollars Fine (N$1000-00) or in default of payment twelve (12) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of three (3) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of Theft during the period of suspension.”

[2] Mainga J (as he than was) addressed the following remark to the learned magistrate:

“1. In both case nos 314/2009 and 10/2010 the words committed are omitted in the sentence. Doesn’t the omission render the sentence useless? See R v Cloete 1950(4) SA 191E at 192F-G”

The learned magistrate replied as follows:

“I concur with the Honourable Reviewing Judge that the word COMMITTED is omitted in the sentence on both cases, and I further concur that this renders the sentence useless.”

He requested the Reviewing Judge to insert the word “committed” in the respective sentences.

[3] In the premises the conviction is confirmed and the sentence is substituted with the following:

One thousand Namibian dollars fine (N$1000-00) or in default of payment twelve (12) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of three (3) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of theft committed during the period of suspension.

__________________

SWANEPOEL, J

I agree

__________________

SIBOLEKA, J