(a) for the sake of disposing of cases expeditiously without fully enquiring into the details of the offence. Maintenance Act Accused in arrears in substantial amount Penalty provision – – – Substantial fine and periodical imprisonment Offence in terms of s 39 of the Act not – or Court not exercising its discretion judiciously when invoking s 112 (1) ‘minor’ ‘trivial’ – (a). Maintenance Act Subsection 39 (2) provides for the defence of lack of means – – Accused raised defence when informing court in mitigation of sentence that he was unemployed Failure to record plea of not guilty Misdirection Conviction and – – – sentence set aside. ORDER The conviction and sentence are set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court in terms of s 312 (1) of Act 51 of 1977 with the direction to enter a plea of not guilty in terms of s 113 and to bring proceedings to its natural conclusion. JUDGMENT LIEBENBERG J: (Concurring SHIVUTE J) [1] In this case the accused appeared in the magistrate’s court for the district of Keetmanshoop on a charge of contravening s 11 (1) of the Maintenance Act 9 of 2003,
(a) for the sake of disposing of cases expeditiously without fully enquiring into the details of the offence. Maintenance Act – Accused in arrears in substantial amount – Penalty provision – Substantial fine and periodical imprisonment – Offence in terms of s 39 of the Act not ‘minor’ or ‘trivial’ – Court not exercising its discretion judiciously when invoking s 112 (1) (a). Maintenance Act – Subsection 39 (2) provides for the defence of lack of means – Accused raised defence when informing court in mitigation of sentence that he was unemployed – Failure to record plea of not guilty – Misdirection – Conviction and sentence set aside. ORDER The conviction and sentence are set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court in terms of s 312 (1) of Act 51 of 1977 with the direction to enter a plea of not guilty in terms of s 113 and to bring proceedings to its natural conclusion. JUDGMENT LIEBENBERG J: (Concurring SHIVUTE J) [1] In this case the accused appeared in the magistrate’s court for the district of Keetmanshoop on a charge of contravening s 11 (1) of the Maintenance Act 9 of 2003,
S%20v%20Gurunab%20(CR%2043-2017)%20[2017]%20NAHCMD%20211%20(07%20August%202017).docx