Windhoek Magistrate's Court acquits man accused of taking crate without permission

The Windhoek Magistrate's Court acquitted Paulus Hamutenya and dismissed a theft charge after finding that the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he took a crate without permission.

The State sought a conviction, while Hamutenya said he had been allowed to take the crate home and pay on payday. The court found that he took it, but said the evidence left a material uncertainty about permission.

The court accepted that Hamutenya took the crate: the State repeatedly described a camera image showing him carrying it out, and his own account presupposed that he had taken it home. But the image was not before the court, so it could not independently assess its quality or context.

The State reported that Selma denied giving permission, but she did not testify in the supplied record. The court also had only the parties' descriptions of a message about payment on payday; the message itself was unavailable and its described wording did not identify the crate.

The message offered some support for a payment arrangement, the court said, but did not establish what it concerned. Nor did the court find that permission for this particular crate had been established.

The distinction mattered because the State had to prove the absence of permission beyond reasonable doubt. Hamutenya did not have to prove he was authorized, and his inability to produce a document identifying the crate could not fill the gap in the State's case.

The State argued that the camera image established the taking and that Selma's reported denial addressed permission. It acknowledged the payday message but said the message did not identify what the payment was for.

Hamutenya disputed that the taking was unauthorized, saying Selma had allowed him to take the crate home and pay her on payday. The State said it had no separate witness or record to settle the conflict and sought a conviction only if the evidence met the criminal standard.

Hamutenya's account was that the crate had been offered for home use, with payment on the next regular payday. He did not recall the exact date or whether he ever paid, and the crate's current location was uncertain.

The acquittal resolves the criminal charge on the evidence presented; it does not establish that permission was given. The court ordered no payment or other relief and did not determine whether any payment later became due.