IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter
R E X
Delivered by the Hon. Acting Mr. Justice M. L. Lehohla
on the 12th day of February, 1987
After the ruling made on 12th September 1986 this matter
was postponed to 6th November for hearing of defence evidence.
were heard on 13th November 1986.
Much of the important aspects of the Crown evidence was
dealt with in the ruling that was made. It remains therefore to deal
defence evidence against where necessary the background of the
Crown evidence. Defence evidence was led by the accused alone.
He testified under oath that he is a policeman and that
around the period surrounding the events of 30th March 1985 when
Phomolo Leballo met his death he was a policeman still
On the morning of 30th March 1985 Accused testified that
he had been drinking with friends at Upper Thamae. He went to
shebeen at Lower Thamae and arrived there at about 2
O'clock in the morning. At the shebeen he found the deceased with
some six other
deceased's girl friend i.e. P.W.11 ('Mangaka Tlall) at
P.E., deceased's sister P.W. 10 (Nts'iuoa Leballo) at
P.E., Thaba Hoohlo P.W.9 at P.E., Tholo Masakale P.W.8 at P.E., all
evidence was admitted in these proceedings and some two
others, to wit, a girl whose name accused does not remember and a
whom he does not know.
On arrival accused was offered beer by the deceased.
Apparently the two were used to each other for a long time as stated
though he regarded him as an acquaintance. Deceased told
him that he and the people found present there were about to leave
accused to help drive deceased's vehicle and transport them
in accused's presence as the latter felt due to intake of much
he could not personally drive his own vehicle. Accused
The deceased sat on the front passenger seat while P.We
9, 10 and 11 at P.E. occupied the back seat. Accused was the driver.
vehicle headed for Lerotholi Technical Institute where P.W.9 and
10 supra were dropped.
The rest of the party drove to Khubetsoana. P.W.11 puts
the time of their arrival at 5 a.m. See page 16 of the P.E. record.
taking rounds at Khubetsoana P.W.11 supra was set down
from the vehicle. She asked deceased to also disembark for some talk
but it was not until persuaded by accused that
After some time deceased got back into the vehicle and asked accused
to drive to 'Mamahlelebe's shebeen which
is also at Khubetsoana. The
time according to accused was either 5 or 6 a.m. At this time the
company consisted exclusively of
the two of them. They continued
drinking beer at this shebeen for about an hour.
/At some ...
At some stage during the drinking at this place deceased
asked accused to remove their car from the way to allow passage for
motor vehicle road users. It was after accused had parked the
vehicle properly, having performed reversing mancuvers in the dark
under the guidance and direction of deceased that he noticed that
deceased was talking to some people near another vehicle. Accused
went back into the house. On his return into the house deceased gave
to accused a plastic parcel. It turned out that this parcel
bullets which accused did not count at the time. The parcel was
handed over to accused on the allegation that deceased
was wearing a
trek suit. Accused is non-committal on whether this trek suit had any
pockets for in his own words "According
to him (meaning
deceased)it appeared the trek suit had no pockets."
Then eventually the two left intending to go to their
respective homes. However accused decided to call at his girlfriend's
Borokhoaneng. When deceased and accused left Khubetsoana it
was already light i.e. about 6 or 7 a.m. On knocking at his
door he was not allowed in the reason offered by the
girlfriend being that she had visitors. Thereupon accused informed
that he would rather be dropped at the Main Bus Stop at
Pitso Ground because he was no longer interested in going home. This
done and from the Pitso Ground where deceased took the wheel
after accused had been set down deceased then drove off taking the
leading towards Metro and rounded off the Molimo Nthuse
Bottle Store corner on the other side of which his vehicle
according to accused is the last occasion that he
saw the deceased.
Accused testified that he was carrying a firearm
borrowed from 2nd Lt. Mokhele that day because he had not yet been
issued with his
own because the store keeper responsible for issuing
firearms was not there. Accused is adamant that he never fired that
on the morning of 30th March 1985 or at all.
From the Bus Stop accused says he went to T.Y. to visit
his maternal uncle. The time was then about 8 a.m. He was not
go to work on that day. He concedes in his evidence in
chief that he disappeared from 30th March till 20th April 1985 when
Explaining his movements during the interval
spanning the period of his disappearance and eventual
emergence accused says on the night of 31st March at around 9 p.m. he
Khubetsoana to see a girl he had met at 'Mamahlelebe's
shebeen the previous day i.e. Saturday night. He did not find her and
asked to go and wait outside for taxis as 'Mamahlelebe was then
going to bed.
While thus waiting he saw that same vehicle he had seen
deceased talking to the occupants of on Saturday, arrive. One of the
then got out of it and knocked at 'Mamahlelebe's door.
Apparently he was not allowed into the house whereupon he inquired
accused if it was still open but was told"no".
Accused then asked for a lift from these two people who were
him. He had seen one of them only once. They dropped
accused at the turn off to Sebaboleng for they were proceeding to Ha
It was while accused was in this vehicle that he was told
by these two strangers that Phomolo was dead. He learnt from them
some further details bearing upon
Phomolo's death. These were that deceased had been shot
by a policeman he had been travelling with on the Saturday. On asking
the description of the policeman in question they gave accused
the description to which accused's identity answered by fitting in
not only with the time deceased and accused were together but also
with his clothing and the fact that the policeman in question
while at University, been the goal keeper for the University football
They informed accused that deceased's friends including
police used to those friends and soldiers were hunting for the
in question with the aim of killing him in the manner
different from that in which they had killed one Lebohang who had
This time they would effect the killing secretly. He also
learnt from these strangers that Lebohang was an ordinary civillian
was shot on an allegation that he had shot deceased's friend.
Accused was frightened by this story because he had
learnt that the said Lebohang had not been the person responsible for
of deceased's friend but was as innocent as accused
Then accused went home to sleep. Then on Tuesday he
says he told the police by which he was quick to explain that he
Manamolela. The latter inquired where accused was
phoning from so that she could fetch him but accused declined to do
he did not know who to trust after hearing that deceased's
friends were intent on killing him by gun fire. He now says that in
had been calling from the Veterinary Clinic in Maseru.
Accused denies that he ever came in the vicinity of the
Agricultural College during his travel with deceased.
On 20th April, 1986 at 12.45 p.m. he came to Police
Training College and met P.W.1 Sergeant Lerotholi after his arrival.
for going there was that it would be useless hiding for a
long time because he would ultimately be found out by those people he
were hunting for him.
P. W. 1 wanted to know why accused had disappeared and
where he had been. Accused informed him that there were people who
for him alleging that accused had killed their friends
so they wanted to retaliate. Otherwise accused told him he was still
He further said P.W.1 did not tell him that police were
looking for him on suspicion of killing someone. Next the two went
food as accused told P.W.1 that he was hungry.
Accused denies that he said without any prompting "I
cleared one person; one dog has died from the bullet." Accused
he heard P.W.1 testifying that accused said the above words to
him because P.W.1 alleged they were friends, a factor that accused
However in the same breath he says they lately are on
friendly terms and by lately he says he means a little before the
start of the
Preparatory Examination. He denies that on 20th April
1985 they were on friendly terms. The basis of his assertion that
not on friendly terms with Lerotholi then is as set out in
the summary of the evidence contained in the ruling referred to
Accused testified that it was during the time while
and P.W.1 were at meals that P.W.2 Lt. Letsie arrived
and a discussion ensued wherein P.W.2 inquired when
accused intended coming back to P. T. C. to complete the course. It
is to be noted
that although accused was a police trainee he was not
based at P. T. C. but was attached to Police Headquarters. Accused
that he would come back to P. T. C. to complete the course
when instructed to do so. P.W.2 then told him that he was still
at P. T. C. He says it is not true that he was supposed to
be at P.T.C. at the time. He further points out that it is not true
in answer to a question put by P.W.2 he said he was back at
P.T.C. because he had an assignment. He remembers hearing P.W.2 say
giving evidence that accused did not divulge to him the nature of
that assignment even though accused was required to comply when
by P.W.2 as accused's senior. He further says P.W.2 who was only 2nd
Lt. cannot have been the most senior officer at P.T.C.
at the time
because accused saw Lt. Mphutlane who is senior to P.W.2 Despite his
denial of P.W. 2's version it is surprising indeed
should say he suggested that he should rather be taken to Major
Manamolela. The reason for preference to be taken
is given as having to do with accused's disappearance as against
P.W.2's intention to take accused to the charge office.
At the charge office Lt. Col. Sehloho asked P.W.2 where
the firearm accused had been carrying was. Then accused took out the
and some bullets. The firearm was loaded. Accused unloaded it of
four rounds of ammunition which he had received from 2nd Lt. Mokhele
still in their intact state. Accused was never searched. He was
locked up in a cell and no charge was given to him before being
up. He only knew for the first time that he was
facing this charge when he attended his first remand on
26th April, 1985.
Referring to P.W.4's evidence (Lt. 'Neko's) accused
concedes that he and P.W.4 are related but that he is not on good
terms with P.W.4
because the latter is related to accused's wife and
accused's marriage to his wife is not a happy one. Accused denies
that some policeman
told P.W.4 that accused wanted to see him i.e.
P.W.4. He denies ever telling any policeman that he wanted to see
Accused's version is that he was fetched from the cell
in the usual manner and taken to Maseru C.I.D. office and he got
a bench in the corridor and was later called by a policeman
to an office where he found P.W.4. He denies having been asked by
to give an explanation about his disappearance. All he knows
is that P.W.4 said he should sit down then asked him if people with
whom he stayed still come to see him and further whether they were
bringing him clothes and food. Accused replied in the affirmative
save that on that day they had not come whereupon P.W.4 offered
to bring him food if he was hungry. Nothing relating to this
was discussed between these two. He denied P.W.4'3 version that he
said he had quarrelled with deceased near Agricultural
went further to stress that at no time was he and deceased ever at
that place. He denied that P.W.4 asked him where
deceased was. He
denied telling P.W.4 that he left deceased at Mokoaqong and stresses
that he did not know of a place by that name
-around 23rd April 1985.
He concedes that he went to Ha Leqele with P.W.4, P.W.5 and one
Alfa. The reason he went there with P.W.4
was to show the latter
where he had
attended picnics on two previous occasions. He did not
know before going there on the day in question that a body had been
from there or nearby.
If I may for a moment pause here and reflect on
accused's testimony:- He has strained to distance himself at every
turn from any connection
with the tragic event that befell the
deceased. In doing so he has even gone to ludicrous lengths. For
him to suggest that P.W.4
a senior officer who was on a murder trail
and as such called upon by responsibilities of his office to
interview or interrogate
a suspect should confine himself to mundane
things like whether accused was still receiving food or clothing and;
as if that is not
enough,go along with a posse of senior policemen in
the company of the accused merely to have the latter show him where
he had previously
held picnics is, to say the least,absurd in the
The Court went on inspection in loco to the area
where accused alleges he went with P.W.4 and others. Indeed P.W.5 led
me first to an area some sixty paces from where
stationed. This is a donga relatively shallower than the next lying
another thirty paces uphill. The first spot accords
more with the
description given by the Crown witnesses than the second one where
they later indicated is where the body of the deceased
from. Accused admits that the first spot is the one where he went
with P.W.4 to show him where he held picnics twice.
Accused denies ever pointing inside any part in that
donga and saying to P.W.4 that a certain spot on the edge of the
donga is where
he left the deceased. He says he never spoke about the
deceased while he and the others were there. He denies that after the
pointing by him
P.W.4 then asked P.W.5 if he could confirm that this was
the spot where P.W.5 collected the body of the deceased. Accused
that nowhere within his hearing was the deceased spoken
about by P.W.4 and those others.
Accused says he does not know how deceased met his death
and that in any case he is not accountable for it.
Mention has been made of the fact that the first spot in
the donga accords with the description given by the Crown witnesses.
second spot however appeared to
have lost the arched curve on the edge probably because
and plumping down the soil falling off and plumping
down from the bank due to erosion as was
suggested by further cracks about a foot from the edge
of the donga.
Accused emphasised that he never had a quarrel with
Under cross-examination accused stated that in going
round and round at Khubetsoana it did not appear as if deceased who
him had lost direction. It would also appear that the
party at deceased's shebeen left that place at 5.00 a.m. It would
that deceased and accused left 'Mamahlelebe's shebeen at
about 6 a.m. in the morning of March 30th 1985.
Accused also revealed that Major Manamolela knew where
he was during the period when he was not on duty. This he informed
her by Telephone
on a Tuesday following the date of his
disappearance i.e. 30th March 1985. He also mentioned to her that he
was still in Maseru
hiding himself. He said he refused to tell her
where he was hiding. It is again strange that a man in the position
of accused who
has laid so much stress on the importance of a junior
having to do what his senior commands him to do should
be heard to say that he refused to reveal his whereabouts when asked
same by his staff officer Manamolela. However he explains
that he suspected her of being one of those hunting for him. He did
find it wise to hand himself over to the police even though he is
one of them and presumably knows as such that it is the wisest
to do when one is in circumstances such as he was in.
Asked why he decided to surface at P.T.C. and risk
capture at that area he replied that he did so because there were
who would have seen him and he trusted them. He said
he did not go to P.T.C. for protection but rather so that police
him if it was true they were looking for him.
He also said P.W.1 Sgt. Lerotholl was fabricating
against him when he said accused told him "I have removed
someone from the
way and one dog has died from a bullet" for
which he is unable to account. However he alluded to the occasions
20th April 1985 when P.W.1 and he had some tiffs.
The impression I have formed of these so-called quarrels
with P.W.1 is that they were not of such a nature as to cause any
between them. Indeed during argument Mr. Pheko for the
accused did not find fault with the remark that regard being had to
the fact that accused is a recruit this behaviour could
expected by new comers from old comers as a way of initiating the
former to the new community.
Indeed it is fitting to observe at this stage that from
the evidence that has emerged accused desires to be
regarded as a very solitary person leading a melancholic
existence. He cuts a very sombre picture of himself. He renounces
that P.W.1 says exists between the two of them. He is
suspicious of P.W.4's overtures for friendship and says he is not on
terms with P.W.4 because of the attitude P.W.4 has towards
him as a result of discordant relations between him and his wife.
to say evidence shows he does not live together with his
wife because of disharmony existing between them. He does not admit
existence of obvious friendship that he is alleged to have had
with the deceased. On the morning of the fatal event he was denied
entry into his girl friend's house, while later at 9 p.m.
'Mamahlelebe denied him entry into the shebeen and could not even
him to use her phone in order to call a taxi instead referred
him to go and wait outside for the taxis. He does not want to
anything regarding his whereabouts to Major Manamolela
despite the apparent good rapport shown between him and her hence his
that he would rather be referred to her than sent to the
During the three weeks of remaining in hiding he was
keeping the gun and the bullets with him. Asked why on parting with
he did not give back those bullets in the plastic bag he
said he thought he forgot because of the effects of the drinks he had
Under cross examination accused adopted an attitude of
fencing with the questions and not giving straight forward replies
no adverse inference would necessarily follow from his
/In reference ...
In reference to characteristic features by which he
could recognise the spot in the donga he replied "The donga
there has a kind
of a bend." "Are those characteristics
confined to that spot, aren't there similar ones up and below that
spot - ? I have
never examined the donga" "You cannot
exclude existence of similar features up or below the spot - ? I am
saying I do not
know if there are any other similar features".
Accused's attempt to dissociate himself from the events
connected with deceased's death led him to making . inconsistent
Asked whether as far as he was concerned the highlight
of his mission with 'Neko to the area around the donga at Ha Leqele
pointing out of the place where picnics used to be held and
the path that formerly cut across the donga he replied - ? To my
the mission had been accomplished". Having admitted
that the whole mission struck him as nonsensical however when asked
you ask 'Neko why engage in this pointless exercise - ?
he replied "According to my police training I cannot ask that."
But soon thereafter when asked "When you got to police office on
return from the spot at Ha Leqele, while regarding yourself
innocent, did you ask 'Neko why you were being locked up - ? I had
asked that at the beginning and was given no explanation"
demonstrating that to suit his convenience this code of conduct to
which he makes it appear he adheres at all costs, can and
Having vehemently rejected any suggestion that he
confided in Major Manamolela yet he did not want her to fetch him
from where he
had been hiding, however to a question put by gentleman
Lefu "Why didn't you tell police
about the threats and that some police were involved in
making them - ? I did not know how to distinguish them." "You
Manamolela though - ? Yes"
"You did not tell her where you rang from why - ? I
did not trust her, I did not want to get into trouble" "You
you could ring someone you do not trust about a thing of this
kind - ? I rang her in her capacity as staff officer".
It thus remains a matter for conjecture what difference
this makes. i.e. the capacity of a staff officer in the
Again a point illustrating the breach of so-called
impregnable wall existing between Seniors and juniors comes out in
extract appearing at page 142 of the manuscript.
" Did you ask any of the police to charge or
release you - ? No"
"You were not bothered yet you regarded yourself as
innocent - ? I was bothered hence I asked Letsie."
Accused strains to create an impression that Major
Manamolela did not know where he was and he did not disclose to her
this fact yet
a conclusion to the contrary was not difficult to reach
as appears from page 16 of the earlier ruling, to wit, "Mr.
that the fact that accused was denied an opportunity
to be confronted with Major Manamolela, who is among Seniors, alleged
known accused's whereabouts during the three weeks' period of
his alleged disappearance should result in an adverse inference
being drawn against the Crown for she would confirm accused's
Having expressed no interest to know why deceased handed
him the plastic parcel containing bullets it took accused an indirect
to supply the reason that was required in the first place.
This is borne out in the following extract ad 144 of the manuscript
" Did deceased ask you to place bullets on you or
on the vehicle - ? I said he gave them to me in the house to keep
trek suit had no pockets."
Why does he give this reason now yet to an earlier
question whether deceased's trek suit had pockets he said he did not
It is also highly unlikely that deceased was wearing a
trek suit in view of the fact that when the body was identified it
dressed in clothes in which the deceased was seen dressed
in by his wife on 29th March
1985 see page 11 of the admitted P.E. record.
Another aspect of accused's story that is hard to
believe relates to the two strangers who informed him of the
deceased's death and
details relating thereto. The strangers gave a
description of the assassin that fitted with accused in almost all
details i.e. history
as ex-goal keeper of Rovers Football Club, fact
that he is a policeman who was last seen in the company of the
deceased and the fact
that the assassin was wearing a grey suit.
Regard being had to the probable time of the day i.e. about 7 a.m. at
the end of March
and to the fact that nowhere did accused indicate he
had changed his clothing, it would be strange that the strangers'
could not be drawn to accused's clothing as the possible
/I have ...
I have heard arguments and received very valuable sets
of heads of arguments from both Counsel. As pointed out earlier I
in part evaluated Crown evidence in the ruling that was
given at close of Crown case.
The overall impression I have of the Crown witnesses is
P.W.1 Sgt. Lerotholi struck me as a truthful witness who
was candid and had no reason to fabricate about what accused told
have already indicated that reasons advanced by accused for
this witness to implicate him falsely are not acceptable.
P.W.2 Lt. Letsie was firm in his evidence but wasted
time by not answering questions direct. He behaved as if he
that every question put to him was a trap or a mine
field calculated to blow him up unawares.
P.W.3 Lt. Matela struck me as truthful and having
nothing to fabricate against the accused. Accused himself did not
inform him about
his absence from work nor did he account to him
about the extra bullets he had.
P.W.4 Lt. 'Neko, as pointed out in the ruling earlier
displayed no element of hostility to the accused. He struck me as
I believe his account of what accused said to him.
P.W.5 W/0 Polanka except to say independent evidence
shows that he is the one who fetched the body from the donga his
well covered in the ruling I made
Common among them though was their forgetfulness
/of matter ...
of matters which could have been useful to the court.
Non-use of a note book is the bane of police investigating crime.
In agreeing with Mr. Lenono's submission that accused
manifests himself as a consumate inventor of the most improbable
would hasten to refer to a Swaziland Appeal Court decision
i.e. APP. No 21/85 Zunku vs The Queen (unreported) where Maisels J.P.
quoting Lord Devlin in Broahurst vs REX 1964 A.C. 441 at 457 said:
" Save in one respect, a case in which an accused
untruthful evidence is no different from one in
which he gives no evidence at all (if) on the
proved facts two inferences may be drawn about the
accused's conduct or state of mind, his untruthfulness is a factor
which the jury
can properly take into account as strengthening the
inference of guilt."
It is common cause that the Crown's case rests on
circumstantial evidence. It is of importance in approaching such
its cogency is determined by the cumulative effect of
indepent items which point to the same conclusion. See Harris
20th Ed. 457.
When making such determination it is essential not to
overlook the objective facts which emanated from the evidence for
they are ultimately
the ones which may shed light as to the guilt or
otherwise of the Accused.
Accused and deceased were not enemies. Indeeddeceased
as pointed out by Mr. Pheko entrusted hissafety in the hands of
the accused to drive hiscar while he himself was too drunk to do
The two were in each other's company drinking beer.
/(c) When ...
When the two were last seen nothing shows therewas
any animosity between them.
The cause of death is said to be subdural
haemorrhagebut as to the objective findings determined
onindependent medical evidence there is nothing to goby
except hearsay evidence, to wit, "Deceased issaid to have
been shot dead on the 30th March1985". The nature of the
evidence being circumstantial this does not cast any light
as to who shotthe deceased dead.
There does not seem to be any motive why accusedcould
have killed deceased because even grantingthat he said that he
quarrelled with deceased atAgricultural College nothing was
advanced as tothe probable cause of such quarrel.
Account should also be taken of the fact thatevidence
revealed that none of the police gave acharge to the accused.
It was also a matter thatcaused the Court great concern that it
was notknown who was the investigating officer in thiscase:
for as shown ad page 14 of my ruling it waspointed out that
" As effectively shown, both in cross-examination
and during addresses, there were some appalling inconsistencies
features in the conduct of police investigation of this
case. I use the word 'investigation* guardedly because none came
saying he either was an investigator of this case nor that he
knew who was except W/O Polanka
whose evidence has been found to be worthless
in this regard."
(g) No evidence has been adduced to support the
versionthat the gun before Court is the one which was usedto
kill the deceased. No evidence has been adducedto show that any
one of the bullets handed to accusedby Mokhele was used in the
killing of the deceased.The matter is compounded by the fact that
/when he ...
when he surfaced had more bullets than he had been
given. He gave an explanation as to how he acquired them and there
does not seem
to be any basis for rejecting it. Another matter, if
one can indulge oneself some speculation, is why would not the
firing the "one shot that killed the deceased"
and being possessed of eight bullets more discard all the excess of
save to replace the fired one with one of those in order to
maintain the number that was issued to him by Mokhele in the first
To return to the charge, there is no evidence adduced by
the Crown to show
(h) how deceased met his death nor the nature of the
weapon for that matter.
Having said all this in evaluating the evidence I came
to the conclusion that accused indeed uttered the words "I have
someone from the way, one dog has died from the bullet"
and the other related words namely that "I parted with deceased
at this spot" pointing at a place at Ha Leqele.
But it is to be observed that while the fact that a
person confesses his guilt of the offence affords the strongest
thereof, nevertheless evidence of oral confession of
guilt should be received with great caution for as appears in The
Law of Evidence in South Africa by Scoble 3rd Ed.
" the statements, although actually made as
to, may be false, for the prisoner, appressed by the calamity of his
situation, may be induced by motives of hope or fear
to make an
untrue confession, and the same result may have arisen from a morbid
ambition to obtain an
infamous notoriety or from anxiety to screen
a comrade or it may even be the result of
the delusion of an overwrought and fantastic
Accused had spent not less than three weeks in hiding
after he was last seen in company of deceased no doubt he was anxious
the calamity of his situation. He had been straining at the
leash to communicate with Major Manamolela yet could not come out of
hiding and speak to her face to face despite that he knew that she
was the one who knew the nature of his mission, for fear that
might betray him. C.F. R vs Mlambo 1957(4) S.A. 727 AD at 738 whereMalan J.A. : said
" An accused's claim to the benefit of a doubt when
it may be said to exist must not derive from speculation but must
a reasonable and solid foundation created either by
positive evidence or gathered from reasonable inferences which are
not in conflict
with, or outweighed by, the proved facts of the
So the fact that the vehicle in which deceased was last
seen travelling in has disappeared cannot rule out a possibility that
has driven it away had to do with deceased's death. See Rex
vs BLOM 1939 AD 188. "The inference sought to be drawn
must be consistent with all proved facts. If it is not, the
inference cannot be drawn."
" The proved facts should be such that they exclude
every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be drawn.
they do not exclude other reasonable inferences then there must
be doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is correct."
The highest water mark of the crown evidence is a strong
indeed very strong suspicion that the accused caused the death of the
I find this suspicion well
grounded and reasonable. But it amounts to no more than
Accused is given a benefit of doubt, acquitted and
My assessors agree.
M. L. LEHOHLA ACTING JUDGE
12th February, 1987
For the Crown : Mr. Lenono For the Defence : Mr.
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law