Iuze Mukube Housebreaking with intent to steal and theft are not merely about the loss of property but also constitute an invasion of privacy and the deprivation of possessions that people have worked hard to acquire, according to the Court of Appeal. The remark was made by Windhoek High Court Judge Claudia Claasen, acting in... The post ‘Housebreaking more than theft’ appeared first on New Era .
Iuze Mukube
Housebreaking with intent to steal and theft are not merely about the loss of property but also constitute an invasion of privacy and the deprivation of possessions that people have worked hard to acquire, according to the Court of Appeal.
The remark was made by Windhoek High Court Judge Claudia Claasen, acting in concurrence with Acting Judge Marilize du Plessis, while dismissing an appeal against a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
“Housebreaking with intent to steal is indeed a serious offence and has always been viewed by the courts as such, for which heavy sentences are imposed,” she said.
She noted that the crime is committed with disrespect for the privacy of others, while offenders may also damage property during the commission of the offence before helping themselves to the hard-earned possessions of others.
According to Claasen, innocent and vulnerable members of society deserve protection against such crimes, and the court has the responsibility to send a stern warning to potential offenders.
The accused, Simson Tjikuvira, was convicted on a count of theft of goods valued at N$6 100, all of which were allegedly recovered in his possession shortly after the complainant reported the matter to the Okakarara Police Station.
The accused supposedly admitted to a previous conviction in 2016 on a count of possession of stolen goods.
He was found guilty in the Okakarara Magistrate’s Court on one count of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
On 8 May 2025, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, of which two years were suspended for a period of three years on the condition that he is not convicted of the same offence during the suspension period.
Thereafter, Tjikuvira appealed against his conviction and sentence in the High Court.
He contended that the court erred in rejecting his version of events when considering the totality of the evidence and that the elements of the offence had been proved. He further argued that the court a quo erred in sentencing him to a lengthy term of two years in prison without a suspended sentence.
In ruling, Claasen found that the court a quo’s discretion to sentence an offender should not be eroded by a court of appeal.
Adding that interference with such discretion is only required where it is apparent that various circumstances exist, such as that the trial court misdirected itself on the facts or on the law, etc.
She found that the appellant had no prospect of success in his appeal against his sentence.
Making the above ruling, Claasen referred to case law where a court said that “we reiterate that housebreaking not only unlawfully invades the privacy of the complainant but also infringes the property rights of owners and in many instances threatens the integrity and safety of persons.”
Claasen also found that there was no misdirection by the magistrate in failing to impose a totally suspended sentence.
“No irregularities were committed by the court a quo during the sentencing procedure, and the sentence is not so severe that it induces a sense of shock. No distinction is made between the rich and poor; all levels of society have fallen victim to thieves and housebreakers alike. We are currently involved in a war crime which presently shows no signs of abating,” Judge Claasen said.
She dismissed his condonation application in respect of the notice of appeal against his sentence, and the appeal against the conviction was also struck from the roll.
The post ‘Housebreaking more than theft’ appeared first on New Era.
Follow the story
