In the matter between
THE CLERK OF COURT
THE DIR. OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENT3RD RESPONDENT4TH RESPONDENT
DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.J. GUNI
ON THE 14TH MARCH 2005.
On the date this matter was
heard, the application was forthwith dismissed andthe reasons
were to fo low. These are the reasons.
The applicant herein seeks the review and setting aside
proceedings in criminal
trial CR 175/2004 which took place beforethe Magistrates
court sitting in BEREA district.
There were two accused persons charged with the crime
ofhousebreaking with intent to commit sexual offence and
committinga sexual offence. Both accused pleaded not guilty to
the charge butwere both convicted. They were sentenced to fifteen
The applicant seeks the review and setting aside of the
criminalproceedings conducted at his trial in the following
terms;-(a) That there were irregularities committed by
the court trying
him by conducting some parts of the proceedings in
while the applicant was afforded no interpreter.
This is just a bare allegation. It is unsubstantiated
and unsupported.All the witnesses called at this applicants
trial are BASOTHO adults.The accused persons are both described
as male BASOTHO adults.For everybody who appeared in that trial
SESOTHO was his or hermother tongue. There are no courts in
LESOTHO where theproceedings are conducted in ENGLISH or any
other foreignlanguage. This is a notorious and common knowledge
fact whichthis court is entitled to take a judicial notice of.
The proceedings arealways conducted in SESOTHO in the Subordinate
court.The services of the interpreter are usually required when
someone who does not
know SESOTHO. The Presiding Magistrate was his worship MR. NTHABI
who is a MOSOTHO whose mothertongue is SESOTHO. The applicant
provides no evidence to supportthe allegation that the
proceedings were conducted in ENGLISH.True, the presiding
magistrate always reduces the record of theproceedings in
ENGLISH. That does not mean that the proceedingswere conducted.
This application is opposed. According to the crown
counsel MR.MAPETLA, the application of the similar nature, where
the partiesand the grounds for review are the same, was dealt
with by thiscourt before the Honourable Mr. Justice MONAPATHI.
That previousapplication was dismissed.
Once the matter has been heard and decided upon by the
court, thesame matter cannot be put for the second time before
the samecourt. The course open to the party or parties which is
not satisfiedwith the decision made by this court in that matter,
must proceed onappeal to the superior court. On this ground alone
this applicationmust be dismissed. It is so dismissed.
For Applicant : Ms. Rantofi
For Respondents : Mr. Mapetla
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