Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mines and Energy and Others Global Industrial Development (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mines and Energy and Another (PA 4 of 2007) [2009] NAHC 132 (19 January 2009)
The sentence as formulated was unclear and omitted the requirement that the prohibited conduct should not be committed during the period of suspension; therefore, the sentence was amended to comply with legal requirements.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] NAHC 132
- Parties
- Prosecution: The State; Accused: Martha Ntaagona
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Case Number
- PA 4 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Review Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction confirmed; sentence amended
- Legal Topics
- Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Sentencing, Suspended Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The State
Prosecution
Martha Ntaagona
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Review Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence as formulated by the magistrate was proper and in accordance with the law
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence as formulated was unclear and omitted the requirement that the prohibited conduct should not be committed during the period of suspension; therefore, the sentence was amended to comply with legal requirements.
Court Disposition
conviction confirmed; sentence amended
Orders
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The sentence is amended to N$1000.00 or 12 months imprisonment, of which N$400.00 or 6 months is suspended for 5 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any offence of which violence on a person is an element, committed during the period of suspension.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CASE NO.: CR 11/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA HELD IN OSHAKATI In the matter between THE STATE and MARTHA NTAAGONA (High court review no: 83/2009) CORAM: LIEBENBERG, AJ et SHIVUTE, AJ Delivered on: 02 April 2009 REVIEW JUDGMENT: SHIVUTE, AJ.: [1] The accused appeared before Ondangwa Magistrate’s Court and pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. She was sentenced as follows: “N$1000.00 (one thousand N$ fine) or 12 (twelve) months imprisonment of which N$400.00 or 6 (six) months is suspected for 5 (five) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any offence of which violence on a person is an element, committed the period of suspension”. [2] I did not find it necessary to raise a query with the magistrate. [3] In formulating the sentence. The magistrate states, “6 (six) months is suspected for 5 (five) years…” This does not make sense at all. Had the magistrate proof read the record she was going to pick it up. It is very important for the magistrate to proof read the record before it is send for review. Again in formulating the condition of the suspension of the sentence, the magistrate omitted to state that the prohibited conduct should not be committed “during” the period of suspension. It is trite law that the condition of the suspension of the sentence should provide that the prohibited conduct should not be committed during the period of suspension. [4] Thus the sentence imposed cannot be allowed to stand. [5] In the result, the following order is made: a. The conviction is confirmed. b. The sentence is amended to read: N$1000.00 or 12 months imprisonment, of which N$400.00 or 6 months is suspended for 5 (five) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any offence of which violence on a person is an element, committed during the period of suspension. __________________________ SHIVUTE, AJ I Concur _________________________ LIEBENBERG, AJ