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.

1. 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