S v Nangolo (1) (Review Judgment) (CRIMINAL 65 of 2007) [2007] NAHC 18 (25 April 2007)
The conviction was proper, but the sentence as formulated was unclear and required correction to properly state the condition for suspension.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] NAHC 18
- Parties
- Prosecution: The State; Accused: Ndinelago Nangolo
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2007
- Case Number
- CRIMINAL 65 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Review Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction and sentence confirmed with correction to sentence formulation
- Legal Topics
- Theft, Sentencing, Suspended Sentence
- Source Language
- english
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
Ndinelago Nangolo
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction and sentence were properly formulated
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was proper, but the sentence as formulated was unclear and required correction to properly state the condition for suspension.
Court Disposition
conviction and sentence confirmed with correction to sentence formulation
Orders
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The sentence is confirmed but reformulated to clarify the condition for suspension.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CASE NO.: CR 65/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA In the matter between: THE STATE versus NDINELAGO NANGOLO (HIGH COURT REVIEW CASE NO.: 489/07) CORAM: MAINGA, et VAN NIEKERK, JJ Delivered on: 2007-04-25 _______________________________________________________________________REVIEW : JUDGMENT VAN NIEKERK, J: magistrate's court of theft of clothes from Jet Stores. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced as follows: The accused in this matter was convicted in the Oshakati [1] "N$500 or 12 months wholly suspended for 5 years that accused is not convicted of theft or any other offence of which theft became an elements committed during the period of suspension." The conviction is in order but the formulation of the sentence [2] does not make sense. Firstly, the words "on condition that" have been omitted. Secondly, it is not clear what the words "theft became an elements" mean. Theft cannot "become" an element of an offence. I think these words should simply be deleted. [3] In the result the following order is made: 1. The conviction is confirmed. 2. The sentence is confirmed, but formulated to read as follows: "N$500 (five hundred Namibian dollars) or 12 (twelve) months imprisonment wholly suspended for 5 (five) years on condition that the accused is not convicted of the offence of theft committed during the period of suspension." ______________________________ VAN NIEKERK, J I agree _______________________________ MAINGA,J