Jobless dads given reprieve
The High Court has set aside the Keetmanshoop Maintenance Court's conviction and sentencing of two men for failure to pay child maintenance.
Two fathers, both unemployed, were wrongly convicted of not paying maintenance after having entered guilty pleas, the High Court found.
The High Court found in both cases that the maintenance court had failed in its duty in terms of the applicable regulations.
In the case against Fritz Guibeb, Judge Nate Ndauendapo concurred with Judge Christie Liebenberg and referred the matter back to the maintenance court and ordered it to enter a plea of not guilty and bring the proceedings to their natural conclusion.
Judge Naomi Shivute concurred with Liebenberg in the matter against Paul Gurunab and made a similar ruling and order.
The High Court found that Guibeb was convicted on his guilty plea without enquiry into his defence or why he pleaded guilty.
Guibeb was sentenced to a N$4 000 fine or 10 months' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended on the condition of good behaviour and making a periodical payment of N$600 per month towards the arrears.
The maintenance court further ordered the suspension of the maintenance order until such time that the full amount of N$33 600 in arrears was paid in full.
The court on 5 June 2009 had ordered Guibeb to pay N$400 monthly towards the maintenance of his two children. When questioned about the arrears of N$33 600 Guibeb pleaded guilty and explained that the construction company he was working for had failed to pay its employees since 2010.
However, it came to light that he was paid between N$500 and N$600 per month during the troubled period.
In view thereof it was agreed that he pay N$250 towards maintenance. He was unemployed and only did casual work until 2016 when he again took up employment with the same company.
The judge stated that the court should have held an enquiry before suspending an existing maintenance order.
“The failure to hold an enquiry in terms of the provisions of the Maintenance Act constituted a misdirection,” he ruled.
After Guibeb fell in arrears he was told by a maintenance officer to pay a lesser amount without an enquiry being held.
Liebenberg found that the informal arrangement was in conflict with the maintenance order and therefore invalid.
He emphasised that the court, notwithstanding the fact that the accused gave reasons for failing to comply with the order, still convicted him.
The judge ruled that the maintenance court must first conduct an enquiry before suspending an existing maintenance order, and where a defence of lack of means is raised, note a plea of not guilty and hear evidence to decide whether the accused satisfied the requirements of the Act.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Two fathers, both unemployed, were wrongly convicted of not paying maintenance after having entered guilty pleas, the High Court found.
The High Court found in both cases that the maintenance court had failed in its duty in terms of the applicable regulations.
In the case against Fritz Guibeb, Judge Nate Ndauendapo concurred with Judge Christie Liebenberg and referred the matter back to the maintenance court and ordered it to enter a plea of not guilty and bring the proceedings to their natural conclusion.
Judge Naomi Shivute concurred with Liebenberg in the matter against Paul Gurunab and made a similar ruling and order.
The High Court found that Guibeb was convicted on his guilty plea without enquiry into his defence or why he pleaded guilty.
Guibeb was sentenced to a N$4 000 fine or 10 months' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended on the condition of good behaviour and making a periodical payment of N$600 per month towards the arrears.
The maintenance court further ordered the suspension of the maintenance order until such time that the full amount of N$33 600 in arrears was paid in full.
The court on 5 June 2009 had ordered Guibeb to pay N$400 monthly towards the maintenance of his two children. When questioned about the arrears of N$33 600 Guibeb pleaded guilty and explained that the construction company he was working for had failed to pay its employees since 2010.
However, it came to light that he was paid between N$500 and N$600 per month during the troubled period.
In view thereof it was agreed that he pay N$250 towards maintenance. He was unemployed and only did casual work until 2016 when he again took up employment with the same company.
The judge stated that the court should have held an enquiry before suspending an existing maintenance order.
“The failure to hold an enquiry in terms of the provisions of the Maintenance Act constituted a misdirection,” he ruled.
After Guibeb fell in arrears he was told by a maintenance officer to pay a lesser amount without an enquiry being held.
Liebenberg found that the informal arrangement was in conflict with the maintenance order and therefore invalid.
He emphasised that the court, notwithstanding the fact that the accused gave reasons for failing to comply with the order, still convicted him.
The judge ruled that the maintenance court must first conduct an enquiry before suspending an existing maintenance order, and where a defence of lack of means is raised, note a plea of not guilty and hear evidence to decide whether the accused satisfied the requirements of the Act.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article