Namibia Judgment

High Court Main Division

S v Beukes (3) (Appeal Judgment) (CA 102 of 2015) [2016] NAHCMD 165 (10 June 2016)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 67(1) of the Magistrates Court Rules, lacking clear and specific grounds, rendering it a nullity.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

Stanley Johny Beukes

Appellant

State

Respondent Counsel: Mr Lutibezi

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence: years 17

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant appealed against conviction and sentence but failed to provide clear and specific grounds in the notice of appeal.
Respondent
Respondent argued that the notice of appeal was filed out of time and did not comply with Rule 67(1) requirements; the grounds were not clear or specific.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 67(1) of the Magistrates Court Rules

    Notice of appeal must set out clearly and specifically the grounds on which the appeal is based.

  2. 02

    case law and procedural rules

    Grounds of appeal should not embody arguments or conclusions reached by an appellant; they must be specific and clear.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 67(1) of the Magistrates Court Rules, lacking clear and specific grounds, rendering it a nullity.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • appeal dismissed

Source and reliance status

High Court Main Division

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court Main Division

Judgment

[2016] NAHCMD 165

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK

APPEAL JUDGMENT Case no: CA 102/2015 In the matter between:

STANLEY JOHNY BEUKES

APPELLANT And

THE

RESPONDENT

STATE Neutral citation: Beukes v State (CA 102/2015) [2016] NAHCMD 165 (10 June 2016) Coram: SIBOLEKA J and USIKU J Heard: 22 April 2016 Delivered: 10 June 2016 Flynote: Appeal against conviction and sentence – appellant convicted of rape - Notice of appeal filed out of time – No proper grounds for condonation and no prospects of success shown – Notwithstanding condonation granted – An improper Notice of appeal is no ground at all and as such a nullity.

ORDER In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL JUDGMENT USIKU J, (SIBOLEKA J CONCURRING) [1] The appellant was charged of rape in contravention of section 2 (1) (a) read with section 1 2 (2, 2 (3) 4, 5, 6 7 of the Combating of Rape Act 8 of 2000. He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to 17 years imprisonment on the 20 September2015. [2] He now appeals against the conviction and the sentence. [3] At the inception of the appeal Mr Lutibezi who appeared on behalf of the respondent raised a point in Limine, namely that a convicted person who wishes to appeal against conviction or sentence should file a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days after the date of such conviction, sentence or order with the clerk of the court in which he shall set out clearly and specifically the grounds, whether of facts or law or both fact or law, on which the appeal is based, Rule 67(1) of the magistrates court rules. [3] The rules provide in simple and unambiguous language that the appellant must lodge his notice of appeal in writing in which he must set out “clearly and specifically” the grounds on which the appeal is based. He must do this to enable the magistrate to know what the issues are which are to be challenged so that he can deal with them, in his reasons for judgment. Counsel for the state must know what the issues are so that he can prepare and present argument which will assist the court in its deliberations.

Finally, the court itself will wish to be appraised of the grounds so that it can know what portions of the record to concentrate on and what preparation, if any, it should be made in order to guide and stimulate a good argument in court. [4] The purported grounds purported of appeal on which the appellant relies are no grounds at all but conclusions made by himself. The requirements as set out in Rule 67(1) of the Magistrates court Rules have not been met. It is trite that grounds of appeal should not embody arguments or conclusions reached by an appellant. It must be specific and clear. [5] In my view it is not clear whether the appeal lies against sentence or against conviction or both sentence and conviction. I am of the view that the point in limine taken by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is well founded [6] In the result the appeal is dismissed. ----------------------------------

DN USIKU Judge ----------------------------------

A SIBOLEKA Judge

APPEARANCES APPELLANT: Mr Stanley Johny Beukes Windhoek Central Prison: Inmate RESPONDENT: Mr Lutibezi Of the Office of the Prosecutor-General, Windhoek

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Combating of Rape Act 8 of 2000

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rule 67(1) of the Magistrates Court Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.