S v Haipinge S v Puriza (Case No.: CR 168/2007)  NAHC 142 (03 December 2007);
None of the accused were given the opportunity to make submissions after having been warned as mentioned in e) above and none were given the opportunity to apologise to the magistrate; and
None of the accused were afforded the opportunity to make submissions in mitigation of sentence.
 The magistrate evidently did not consider the previous decisions of this court in respect of the offence of contempt of court, as such S v Johannes Paaie 2006 (1) NR 83 (HC), which judgment was also distributed to all magistrates in Namibia. It is further evident that the magistrate did not comply with the requirements set out in that judgment. In addition, it is clear from the cursory recording of the proceedings that the magistrate was over-sensitive and abused her position in convicting both the accused for contempt of court because their phones rang. The fact that a cellular phone rings in court is not tolerated, but it does not mean that the owner thereof intended to insult the magistrate or that he/she treated the court or the magistrate with contempt. The cursory recording does not indicate that either of them acted in that manner or were warned before, but despite the warning, still did not switch off their phones. In my opinion these two incidents did not warrant anything more than stern warning by the court. Only if they ignored that warning, it might have been seen as possibly insulting or contemptuous behaviour, but even then the magistrate were obliged to comply with what she was required to do, namely to afford these two persons the opportunity to explain, or to apologise and if convicted, to present evidence in mitigation.
 This was not done and the convictions and sentences cannot stand. Consequently, the following orders are made in respect of these cases:
The convictions of contempt of court and sentences of both accused, namely P. H. Haipinge in case no 17637/07 and H. Puriza Case no16623/07 are set aside;
Any fines paid by any of the accused P. H. Haipinge and H. Puriza in respect of the convictions of contempt of court and sentences imposed in respect thereof, must be refunded to them.