HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
case No.95/2005 CR/240/2004
Order No.6/2005 Mohale's Hoek District
Order 8th April. 2005.
accused appeared before the Mohale' s Hoek Magistrate facing three
Culpable Homicide alternatively contravening Section 90 (1) of Road
Traffic Act 8 of 1981;
or about the 18th June, 2004 whilst driving vehicle with registration
No.F 0232 he was reckless or negligent resulting in
killing one Malefane Seboka by knocking him down and killing him.
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.
III: The said accused contravened Section 44 (3) of Road Traffic Act
No.8 of 1981 by driving the said vehicle without a public
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
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.
accused was arrested he was found to be in possession of what the
magistrate called a slip showing that he had just passed
test. I will come to that later.
vehicle which was being driven by the accused was a combi and had
passengers inside. When asked for a public permit he was found
having no such permit.
1 and 3 the facts as stated disclosed offences charged but as for
count 2, could it be said that the accused was driving
licence when in fact he had passed the driving test and also had
proof that he had passed? It was through administrative
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.
transcript proof enough that a person has passed and only awaiting
his formal certificate?
therefore that the accused was wrongly convicted in count II for
driving without a licence. The sentences passed on the three
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
says, all suspended to run concurrently.
committal warrant shows that sentences in count 1 and 2 were all
suspended and left out that for count three. How can all
concurrently when already sentences for two counts have wholly been
suspended. It does not even state the period of such
already shown that the conviction and sentence for count 2 are set
aside. I will deal with count 1 and 3 only.
M2000.00 or two years imprisonment suspended for a period of three
years on condition that accused during period of suspension
found guilty of a similar offence.
M500.00 or six months imprisonment.
Magistrate to call the accused before him and inform him of the
changes made on review.
Police -Mohale's Hoek
Prisons - Mohale's Hoek
Director of Prisons Director of Public Prosecutions
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