IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
REX
vs
MOHALENYANE MOHALE
Review case No.95/2005 CR/240/2004
Review Order No.6/2005 Mohale's Hoek District
Review Order 8th April. 2005.
The accused appeared before the Mohale' s Hoek Magistrate facing three charges of,
Count I: Culpable Homicide alternatively contravening Section 90 (1) of Road Traffic Act 8 of 1981;
In that or about the 18th June, 2004 whilst driving vehicle with registration No.F 0232 he was reckless or negligent resulting in unlawfully killing one Malefane Seboka by knocking him down and killing him.
2
Count II: That the said accused contravened Section 28 (1) of Road Traffic Act No.8 of 1981 by driving the said vehicle without a driver's licence.
Count III: The said accused contravened Section 44 (3) of Road Traffic Act No.8 of 1981 by driving the said vehicle without a public driving permit.
When these charges were put to the accused, he pleaded guilty to all three of them and an outline of facts was made by the public prosecutor. The facts disclosed that accused was seen driving the said vehicle at a very high speed and knocked down a pedestrian who was seen by people around that area driving his donkey. The vehicle had stopped 23 paces away from the point of impact.
When the accused was arrested he was found to be in possession of what the magistrate called a slip showing that he had just passed the driving test. I will come to that later.
The vehicle which was being driven by the accused was a combi and had passengers inside. When asked for a public permit he was found to be having no such permit.
3
For count 1 and 3 the facts as stated disclosed offences charged but as for count 2, could it be said that the accused was driving without a licence when in fact he had passed the driving test and also had proof that he had passed? It was through administrative procedures at the Traffic Office that the accused was yet not in possession of the licence but had passed the test. A similar situation would be that of a student who has only in his possession a transcript from the Registrar of the Institution of Higher learning. Isn't that transcript proof enough that a person has passed and only awaiting his formal certificate?
I find therefore that the accused was wrongly convicted in count II for driving without a licence. The sentences passed on the three counts are also not very clear.
Count 1: M2,000.00 or 2 years
Count 2: M600.00 or 6 months
Count 3: M500.00 or 6 months
Then says, all suspended to run concurrently.
But the committal warrant shows that sentences in count 1 and 2 were all suspended and left out that for count three. How can all that run concurrently when already sentences for two counts have wholly been suspended. It does not even state the period of such suspension.
4
I have already shown that the conviction and sentence for count 2 are set aside. I will deal with count 1 and 3 only.
Count 1: M2000.00 or two years imprisonment suspended for a period of three years on condition that accused during period of suspension is not found guilty of a similar offence.
Count 3: M500.00 or six months imprisonment.
The Magistrate to call the accused before him and inform him of the changes made on review.
M. HLAJOANE
JUDGE
CC: The Magistrate –
Maseru Chief Magistrate
O/C Police -Mohale's Hoek
O/C Prisons - Mohale's Hoek
CID Headquarters –
Maseru Director of Prisons Director of Public Prosecutions
