Alugodhi v Minister of Safety And Security and Others (APPEAL 271 of 2013) [2015] NAHCMD 160 (14 July 2015)

Alugodhi v Minister of Safety And Security and Others (APPEAL 271 of 2013) [2015] NAHCMD 160 (14 July 2015)

Section 86 of the Prisons Act 1998 does not repeal or conflict with s 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977. The default position is that sentences are served consecutively unless the sentencing court expressly orders concurrency. Only the court can order sentences to run concurrently, and ante-dating is not automatic but reserved for appeal or review courts. The respondents’ computation of sentences is lawful.

Citation
[2015] NAHCMD 160
Parties
Applicant: Andreas Alugodhi; Applicant: Gert Shapange; Applicant: Fanie Nanub; Applicant: Simon Petrus !Ganeb; Applicant: Edward Kambundu; Applicant: Louis G Strauss; Applicant: Gerson Kaibeb; Applicant: Joshua Hecht; Applicant: Immanuel Gabriel; Applicant: Immanuel Ndeuapwa; Respondent: Minister for Safety and Security; Respondent: Commissioner General of Namibian Correctional Services; Respondent: Officer in Charge, Windhoek Central Prison; Respondent: The Head of Windhoek Central Prison; Respondent: The Head of Correctional Facility Windhoek; Respondent: The Chairperson Institutional Committee (WFC); Respondent: The Chairperson of National Release Board
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Case Number
APPEAL 271 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Application (stated Case) / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Computation of Sentences, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Interpretation of Prisons Act and Criminal Procedure Act
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Statutory Interpretation Computation of Sentences Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Interpretation of Prisons Act and Criminal Procedure Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andreas Alugodhi

Applicant

Gert Shapange

Applicant

Fanie Nanub

Applicant

Simon Petrus !Ganeb

Applicant

Edward Kambundu

Applicant

Louis G Strauss

Applicant

Gerson Kaibeb

Applicant

Joshua Hecht

Applicant

Immanuel Gabriel

Applicant

Immanuel Ndeuapwa

Applicant

Minister for Safety and Security

Respondent

Commissioner General of Namibian Correctional Services

Respondent

Officer in Charge, Windhoek Central Prison

Respondent

The Head of Windhoek Central Prison

Respondent

The Head of Correctional Facility Windhoek

Respondent

The Chairperson Institutional Committee (WFC)

Respondent

The Chairperson of National Release Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Application (stated Case) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission by sentencing court to specify concurrency or consecutiveness results in sentences running concurrently or consecutively
  2. 2 Whether s 86 of the Prisons Act 1998 impliedly repealed s 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether sentences ordered to run concurrently are automatically antedated

Ratio Decidendi

Section 86 of the Prisons Act 1998 does not repeal or conflict with s 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977. The default position is that sentences are served consecutively unless the sentencing court expressly orders concurrency. Only the court can order sentences to run concurrently, and ante-dating is not automatic but reserved for appeal or review courts. The respondents’ computation of sentences is lawful.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The omission by a sentencing court to specify concurrency or consecutiveness results in sentences being served consecutively.
  • The legal authority for this is s 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977.