HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
LELIA - ACCUSED N0.1
TJANTJELLO THAMAE - ACCUSED N0.2
by the Honourable Mr. Justice W.C.M. Maqutu On the 22nd November,
commenced on the 16th November, 2006. The two accused are charged
with the crime of murder:-
upon the 26th August 2001, and at or near HLOTSE in the district of
LERIBE, the said accused acting unlawfully and with
intent to kill,
did assault one
MAKOMOLE and inflict wounds upon him from which he died at Motebang
Government Hospital on the 27th day of August, 2001.
accused pleaded not guilty. The Crown brought four witnesses to prove
the charge and both accused gave evidence in their defence.
17th November 2001, at end of the defence case the Crown did not
support conviction against Accused Number 2.
therefore was found not guilty and judgment was reserved to the 22nd
November 2006 in respect of Accused Number 1.
Mepa Lekokotoana who testified that he was a driver of a taxi of
which Accused 1 was the conductor.
25th of August 2001, Pwl and Accused 1 loaded passengers going to
Ramapepe. Their license did not permit them to go to Ramapepe.
licensed route was Bokong or Pitseng to Maputsoe. As they were about
to leave a coaster licensed to carry passengers to Ramapepe
Passengers refused to get down when they were asked to go to the
coaster. Pwl took the passengers to Ramapepe.
way back - when still at Ramapepe - they found the coaster parked
across the road near the shop blocking the road. Pwl
says he went to
Metsing the driver of the coaster, his conductor and the deceased who
was the cashier of the coaster - to open
the road. Pwl told the court
that Metsing and deceased refused to allow Pwl's vehicle to continue
its journey. Eventually, the
coaster allowed Pwl's vehicle to pass.
coaster passed them on the road at great speed and got out of sight.
When they saw the coaster again, it was parked outside
the road. When
they got to it, they found big stones had been put in the road
preventing Pwl's vehicle from continuing its journey.
The people of
the coaster would not remove the stones when requested to do so.
Accused 1 removed some of the stones - while he
was doing so,
deceased attacked him and hit Accused 1 with a wire on the face.
Accused was chased by the people of the deceased's
group -but he
of Accused 1 had fallen to the ground as he ran. The conductor of the
coaster gave that hat to Pwl. One of the people from
the coaster hit
Pwl with a hammer on the chest. Pwl got into his vehicle and drove
over the stones. He picked Accused 1 on the
way. They continued on
the 26th August 2001, Pwl says he picked Accused 1 on the way, on
their way to Maputsoe to carry passengers. Accused 1
had a metal pipe
in his hand. Accused 1 said he was going to hit the person who had
hit him the previous day with the metal pipe.
The metal pipe was two
and half feet long. Pwl said he asked Accused 1 not do so. Accused 1
said he was prepared to go to jail
for that person.
told the court that they carried passengers up and down the Pitseng
Maputsoe route the whole day.
evening around 6.00 p.m, they found the coaster at BP Garage Hlotse.
He and Accused 1 went to the coaster which was off-loading
passengers. Accused 1 was ahead of Pwl. When Pwl got to the coaster
he found Accused 1 holding the metal pipe facing deceased who
knife in his hand. Accused 1 hit deceased with the metal pipe on the
head. Then deceased ran away. Accused 1 chased him.
Pwl followed them
and called Accused 1 back. Accused 1 came back and they carried
passengers to Maputsoe. The driver of the coaster
had remained in the
Maputsoe, Pwl met Phoka near Metro, Phoka told Pwl that he and his
passengers had arrested the person Accused 1 was chasing because
thought that person was a thief or a tsotsi who had stolen money from
Accused 1. Pwl said they would find that person at BP
injured. Pwl told the court that Phoka handed the money he had taken
person to Pwl or Accused 1 he is no more sure. Pwl told the court
that that person was neither a thief nor a tsotsi -
but a cashier of
the bus. Pwl told the court they took the money to the police with
Phoka, but he forgets how much money it was.
When they got to BP
Garage they found the person - namely the deceased had been taken to
hospital. The following day they learned
the deceased was dead.
Pwl said after Accused 1 had been hit with a wire on the face, he was
very angry and actually said he was going
to meet the deceased again.
However, Pwl knowing he was in the wrong was not angry. Pwl insisted
Accused 1 in the morning did not
go to their employer's home at
Amerika Hlotse on the 26th August 2006. Pwl insisted that he took
Accused 1 at Matukeng on the way
to Maputsoe. Pwl said Accused 1 was
falsely denying the metal pipe was his and that he said he was going
to use it on the deceased
and go to prison for it. It was false to
say the metal pipe had been lying in the taxi they operated for two
weeks before the incident.
they did not know the coaster would be on duty that day. Pwl was
shown a statement dated 30/08/2001, he acknowledged his
it. The interview with the police was in Sesotho, Pwl acknowledged
that nowhere in his statement did he say Accused
1 brought the metal
pipe and that he was going to use it on the deceased and go to prison
for it. Pwl said he and Accused 1 had
not gone to the coaster to go
and fight. Pwl said he did not see deceased chase accused with a
knife. He only saw them facing each
other. Pwl said he did not
suspect deceased had been injured - but he was not sure. If Accused 1
says Phoka never handed the money
to Pwl or accused - Pwl told the
court it happened.
Molefi Nketsi. He told the court that he and Accused 1 worked for
different passenger carriers. Pw2 and deceased worked
for the same
employer in a coaster. Pw2 was a bus conductor. On the day in
question, Pw2 was with Suthang Metsing, the deceased
Their coaster was going to Ramapepe.
Ramapepe they saw a taxi driven by Pwl whose conductor was Accused 1.
Tsoele and Suthang Metsing told them to put the coaster
road to prevent Pwl's vehicle from passing. After that they alighted
from the coaster. Tsoele said they should fight
Accused 1 and Pwl.
They did not succeed - peace was made, and hands were shaken. Pwl had
no permission to carry,passengers on the
Ramapepe road. After that
Pwl and Accused 1 got into their vehicle and drove off.
overtook Pwl's vehicle and at Ha Khojane they stopped the coaster and
parked it at the side of the road. Tsoele and deceased
put stones in
the road. They asked Pw2 why he did not put stones in the road. Pw2
said what they were doing was dangerous, because
they were blocking
the road for the taxi of Pwl. When Pwl's vehicle came - Accused 1
alighted from it and began to remove the stones
from the road.
Deceased hit Accused 1 with a wire in the face. Deceased then chased
Accused 1. The hat of Accused 1 had
Pw2 picked it up and handed it to Pwl, the driver of the taxi. Pwl
drove off and they followed in the coaster.
It was on
the same day, and they found Pwl and Accused 1 at Hlotse. It was at
Hlotse that Accused 1 hit deceased on the head. Deceased
This happened at BP Garage. Deceased ran in the direction of the taxi
rank and fell. Deceased was bleeding from the mouth.
It was at 7.30
p.m but it was not dark. They took deceased to hospital, he was
bleeding in the mouth and nose. His head was swollen.
This was on a
Sunday. On Monday they found deceased still alive -but unable to
talk. On Tuesday morning they found deceased dead.
Pw2 acknowledged his statement dated 29/08/2001. The statement did
not mention the assault of deceased by Accused
1. Nothing was said
about the deceased's bleeding from nostrils. Pw2 blamed the police
for not recording all he said. Pw2 said
he did not see what deceased
was carrying - later Pw2 said deceased was carrying
Pw2 said he was reminded of some details by questions. Pw2 denied
that he was hiding evidence favourable to the Accused
Phoka Lekokotoana who was a taxi driver. Pw3 told the court he knows
Accused 1 but did not know deceased. He knows Accused
2 but does not
know his name. Pw3 then told the court that he remembers some of the
events that put him before court.
the court that on that Sunday he saw Accused 1 between 6.00 and 6.30
p.m chasing a person. At a time Pw3 had stopped next
to BP Garage bus
stop. He concluded the man was a thief. This man was running holding
money in the form of bank notes in his hand.
Pw3 gave chase in his
vehicle believing the man had snatched the money from Accused 1. Pw3
say the passengers helped him catch
that man, one of them had hit
this man on the foot with a stone. When the man fell facing upwards,
Pw3 found he had a knife in
his left hand. Pw3 took the knife from
deceased and demanded that
give the money he had in his possession to him. The deceased gave the
money to Pw3.
his passengers forced the deceased into the taxi Pw3 was driving. Pw3
then took deceased to BP Garage where he asked the
night watchman to
look after deceased when he did not find Pwl. Deceased held on to
Accused 2's beer bottle in order to support
himself. Accused 2 who
was drinking beer hit deceased with a stick on the head. Deceased
fell below the steps.
got into his taxi and drove off to Maputsoe. Pw3 found Pwl and
Accused 1 and gave them the money -which was over two hundred
They told him that the money did not belong to them - they also told
them how deceased and Accused 1 had fought because
Pwl had taken
passengers to Ramapepe which Pwl was not supposed to do. Pw3 later
gave the money to the police at Hlotse. Later
Pw3 met the owner of
the coaster and told him the money was with the police and that he
should get his money from the police.
the court that he went to hospital where deceased had been taken the
following day. He found the deceased who was still
able to speak.
Deceased told Pw3 he had a headache because he had been hit with an
iron rod on the head. The following day he learned
deceased was dead.
Pw3 said Pwl was his brother born of the same father and mother. Pw3
said although he thought deceased was a thief
he did not punish
deceased. His role was simply to arrest deceased. Pw3 had simply
chased deceased with his vehicle and had no
time to ask Pwl and
Accused 1 any questions as deceased would have run away. The money
was taken by force from deceased. Pw3 had
left deceased helpless at
BP Garage - but he and the passengers had not assaulted deceased. Pw3
had observed deceased was bleeding
from the nose but he did not think
that was serious. He did not take him to the hospital. The passengers
were neither happy nor
angry with deceased. Except for the person who
hit deceased on the leg none of the passengers assaulted deceased.
with further questions, Pw3 said he was surprised to learn that no
allegations of assault by Accused 2 on deceased - or
the deceased was
holding on to the beer bottle of Accused 2 were made in the statement
of Pw3 to the police. Pw3 said he went to
the police with Accused 1
and Pwl. Pw3 said he gave the money to the police and explained
everything. The fact that deceased had
said to Pw3 that he had been
assaulted with an iron rod did not appear in his statement to the
police - but Pw3 said he had told
this to the police. The statement
only showed Pw3 had said deceased had complained of headache. Pw3
denied he was making Accused
1 a victim to hide the fact that he had
Detective Trooper Mabote. He said he was given a report about the
body of deceased on the 28th August 2001. He went to examine
found it had a swollen head. His investigations led him to Pwl and
Accused 1. Accused 1 was brought by female relative.
the explanation of Accused 1 - Accused 1 took him to the home of
In the presence of Moses Tsotetsi, accused took out a metal water
pipe and handed it to Pw4. Pw4 gave Accused 1 a charge.
arrest was done by Detective Trooper Jankie.
closed its case and defence counsel applied for the discharge of
Accused 2. The court refused the application because
Accused 2 had a
case to answer.
1, Tieho Lelia gave sworn testimony on his own behalf. He told the
court he was 23 years and was unmarried. He was a bus
the bus driven by Pwl. His employer at the time was Moses Tsotetsi.
It is correct they illegally loaded passengers
to Ramapepe. This was
on Pwl's instructions and over his objections. When they got back
from Ramapepe they found the coaster blocking
the road near a shop.
The people in charge of the coaster would not open the road -
demanding the money he and Pwl had collected
from the passengers they
had illegally taken. The coaster was licensed to take passengers to
Ramapepe. The chieftainess of
angrily reprimanded them for the disturbance and eventually Pwl and
the people of the coaster who included deceased made
peace and shook
hands with them. After that Pwl's passenger vehicle was allowed to
coaster passed them on the way and got out of view. When they saw it
again it was parked on the side of the road. When Pwl and
got to the coaster, they found that stones had been put in the road
to prevent their vehicle from moving on. The people
of the coaster
refused to remove the stones from the road. After some argument,
Accused 1 began to remove the stones from the road.
Accused 1 with a wire on the face. Others from the coaster hit
Accused 1 with a hammer on the chest and Accused 1
was also hit with
sticks. Accused 1 ran away and deceased and the people he was with
chased him. Accused 1 ran until he got to
the tarred road where he
was later picked by Pwl and they went home.
26/08/2001 - he went to work at Amerika Hlotse where he cleaned the
passenger's vehicle that was
Pwl. Later Pwl came and they went up and down the Pitseng to Maputsoe
route collecting and delivering passengers - the
whole day. At BP
Garage they found the coaster (in which deceased was a cashier)
off-loading passengers. Pwl stopped his taxi,
30 paces from the
coaster at a bus stop. Pwl asked Accused 1 to go and persuade those
passengers who were going to Maputsoe to
use Pwl's vehicle. There
were other bus-conductors competing for the same passengers.
went to the coaster and found deceased still collecting money from
the passengers who were alighting from the coaster.
Accused 1 says he
talked to the first passenger going to Maputsoe and asked the
passenger to follow him. That passenger suddenly
out!". Accused 1 said he jumped up - not knowing the direction
he was jumping because he was very frightened.
Accused 1 then looked
in the direction of the passenger - there he saw deceased holding
money in bank notes in his left hand and
a knife in his right
Deceased rushed at Accused 1 quickly – exclaiming
ran to Pwl's vehicle and managed to get the metal pipe that was on
the vehicle's engine where passengers sit. Three people
sit in the
front cabin of the taxi. Accused 1 then quickly tried to hit the
deceased's arm that was holding a knife. Deceased retreated
a little, and accused managed to hit deceased on the chest. Deceased
turned in order to run away. Accused 1 chased deceased
for a few
paces and stopped because he was down-hearted and discouraged not
knowing why deceased had attacked him - after assaulting
him as he
had done to Accused 1 the previous day. What had even been more
surprising to Accused 1 was that he (Accused 1) had displayed
aggression towards deceased. Consequently because of his
discouragement, accused only ran five paces towards deceased who was
fleeing and stopped.
said it was at that stage Pwl called him and asked him that they
should go. Accused 1 said he did not
where Pwl came from at that stage. Accused 1 said they then got into
the taxi and left for Maputsoe. Accused 1 told the court
metal pipe had been in the taxi for about one month. It had been
provided by the owner for the vehicle's jack in the days
was still the driver of that vehicle - before Pwl became its driver.
They had failed to flatten a portion of it so
that it could work on
the jack. Accused 1 told the court that he never said to Pwl, that he
was going to assault deceased with
it and go to prison for it. He did
not even expect to meet deceased that day. He had no motive of
said he was arrested in September 2001 for events that took place in
Counsel then asked Pwl to add whatever he wished as he had finished
leading Accused 1. It was at that stage that Accused
1 told the court
that at Maputsoe when Pw3 came, Pw3 called Pwl and Pwl alighted from
his vehicle -while Accused 1 remained in
the vehicle. Pw3 looked
when he did this. Accused 1 says he heard Pw3 when he said, he and
the passengers had assaulted that tsotsi or thief
because he refused
to stop - and was fighting them. For that reason that person was
told the court, he whistled in amazement when he heard this, although
Pw3 was talking to Pwl. Pw3 said the person he and
the passengers had
arrested (that is the deceased), had been carrying money. Its amount
Accused 1 did not know. Perhaps Pw3 offered
that money to Pwl. Pwl
explained to Pw3 that deceased was not a thief or a tsotsi and gave
Pw3 full details about deceased and
the events that had taken place
Accused 1 said it was correct he went to the police with a relative.
He told the police only about what he had done
because that is what
the police had said. He had said to the police Pw3 and the passengers
assaulted the deceased. Accused 1 said
he was chased by the deceased
from the coaster to Pwl's taxi. Accused 1 said he does not know
did not mention this. Deceased had first chased Accused 1 to Pwl's
taxi, it was only after Accused 1 had hit deceased on
the chest that
he chased deceased a little. At the time Accused 1 hit deceased he
was not aware of Pwl. Pwl is not telling the
truth when he says
Accused 1 hit deceased on the head.
further Accused 1 said Pwl in his evidence was protecting his brother
Pw3, because Pw3 and the passengers had assaulted
deceased - and
might have killed deceased. Accused 1 said his face was swollen when
he had been hit by deceased with a wire. The
owner of their taxi
Moses Tsotetsi was not told that they had illegally gone to Ramapepe.
Pwl said he should not be told because
they had driven the vehicle on
the gravel road. Accused 1 conceded he was the first to hit deceased.
the assessor to demonstrate how he hit deceased - the demonstration
showed Accused 1 hit deceased on the left hand side
of the chest.
evidence of Accused 2 is no more important. Suffice it to say he does
not drink alcohol - and he was not at that place at the
defence closed its evidence.
was then addressed by both counsels. What emerged was that the driver
of the coaster Suthang Metsing had somewhere mentioned
statement to the police - that Pw3 and his passengers had in fact
assaulted deceased during their mistaken arrest of deceased.
defence counsel why he did not put it to Pw3 that Suthang Metsing's
statement revealed this. Defence Counsel said he thought
Metsing would be called as a witness.
Defence Counsel that the court goes by what is on record only. It was
clear to me that Defence Counsel was very inexperienced.
Nevertheless, I asked Crown Counsel whether the statement of Suthang
Metsing showed Pw3 and his
did assault deceased. Crown Counsel confirmed this fact - but the
rest of the statement was not referred to. I told both
I will take this into account in assessing the evidence on the
assault of deceased by Pw3 and his passengers - but
died of brain damage. Though the skull was no fractured, medical
evidence shows deceased had no external wounds. But he
haematoma on the right occipital region of the head.
the direct evidence of Pwl which shows that Accused 1 hit deceased
with a two and half feet long pipe on the head. There
is also the
evidence of Pw2 that Accused 1 hit deceased on the head. There is no
other evidence that shows the deceased was hit
on the head. I
however, note that Pw2 in his statement to the police never mentioned
this fact. It would be a very strange policeman
who could have failed
or neglected to record this fact, if Pw2 had in fact mentioned this
to any of
policemen. Clearly therefore the evidence of Pw2 on the assault of
deceased by Accused 1 next to BP Garage is highly suspect.
I have to
reject it. I am left only with the evidence of Pwl on this point.
evidence of Crown witnesses which is corroborated by the accused
shows that on the 26th August 2001, deceased assaulted Accused
a wire on the face. This was because deceased and the driver and the
conductor of the coaster were not happy that Pwl and
Accused 1 had
illegally carried passengers to Ramapepe which is the licensed route
of the coaster. Having heard and seen witnesses
I have no doubt that
accused haboured a grudge against deceased who had attacked him after
they had made peace before the Chief
of Ramapepe and had shaken hands
as Pw2 and Accused I himself told the court. Accused 1 was being
untruthful on this point.
point of assault of the deceased by Accused 1, we have the evidence
of a single witness Pwl. The evidence of a
witness is always troubling, because it cannot be easily checked
against other evidence. That being the case it can be unsafe
convict on the evidence of a single witness. It can be just as unsafe
to rely only on corroboration as the law of Scotland provides
crucial facts in the Crown case must be corroborated - that is, they
must be proved by evidence from two sources"
- Walker &
Walker The Law of Evidence of Scotland 2nd Edition 5.1.1. The reason
is simply that two rogues can corroborate each
other and get an
innocent person convicted. To overcome this dilemma, Section 238 (1)
of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act
court may convict any person of any offence alleged against him in
the charge on the single evidence of any competent
in our law of evidence is credibility not quantity. Credibility
remains a problem regardless of the number of witness corroborating
each other. It is well established in our law that the evidence of a
single witness should be treated with caution - R v Mokoena
SA 81 AD. In that case
noted that the single witness who was a potential suspect in the
murder, had a motive to implicate the accused. Courts
are enjoined to
treat the evidence of single witnesses generally - with caution. In
this case, Pwl is not a potential suspect -
no one suggested that he
was. But his own brother Pw3 is a suspect because he assaulted
the passengers who were in Pw3's taxi on the 26th August 2001 are
potential suspects. This could affect Pwl's testimony
as Pw3 is his
brother. The reason is that it emerged during addresses that despite
Pw3's denial - he and his passengers assaulted
him to be a thief when they continued the chase of deceased after
Accused 1 had abandoned the chase. Strictly
speaking, I should not
take this fact into account because it comes from a portion of a
potential Crown witness called Metsing
who was not called because he
was absent. This portion of this statement of Metsing was not put by
accused's counsel to Pw3, furthermore,
defence did not press for the
entire statement to be admitted as evidence. I consider it fair to
the accused that
take this lie of Pw3 into account because accused's counsel was
Pwl might exaggerate and even concoct false evidence to protect Pw3
his brother - I have to treat the evidence of Pwl with
Pwl had not told the police that Accused 1 had brought with him the
metal pipe with which he assaulted deceased on the head.
had not told the police that he asked Accused 1 what he was bringing
the metal pipe for -and Accused 1 said he had brought
it for the
deceased. When the Pwl told him not to do so - Accused 1 had said he
was prepared to go to jail for assaulting deceased.
It is clear that
this evidence is suspect - it might therefore be untrue. Therefore, I
will completely ignore it as false or very
unsafe to act upon.
Perhaps as accused counsel argued - Pwl was making sure Accused 1 was
convicted and all suspicion that Pw3
had a hand in the death of
deceased was laid to rest.
entire statement of Pwl was read into the record, it was almost
identical to the evidence he gave in court - except for the
of Accused 1 bringing the pipe and expressing an intention to assault
deceased and going to prison for it. Pwl gave his
evidence well and
was not shaken in cross-examination. Even so, I remained cautious
especially after I heard the evidence of Pw3.
It was clear that no
person could run with money in bank notes in his left hand - and a
knife in his other hand. Indeed Pw3 showed
they took the money from
the deceased's possession. The running with money in the left hand
and the knife on the other was said
later by Pw3.
Accused 1 said the same thing - I do not believe this. I do not
believe the deceased ever said he was feeling a headache where
been hit with an iron rod. If that was so this should have appeared
in Pw3's statement to the police. Police can make omissions
of such a serious and relevant nature. Conscious that Pwl and Pw3 may
have made sure that Accused 1 is convicted, I listened
evidence of Accused 1.
gave sworn testimony. He told the court, that when he saw the
deceased he was collecting money from passengers who were
from the coaster. Just as he was leading a passenger away towards
Pwl's taxi, he was told watch out. Deceased holding
money in the left
hand (all in bank notes) and holding a knife with the right hand
-deceased was about to attack him. Deceased
chased Accused 1 to the
Pwl's taxi. That is where Pwl picked up a metal pipe on the engine
where passengers seat and hit deceased
on the chest in an attempt to
hit deceased's right hand that had a knife. The demonstration of the
assault on the deceased -according
to Accused 1 was highly
I have no
doubt whatsoever that this is false. Deceased as a cashier ought at
least to put the money in his pocket before he went
for his knife -
if indeed the deceased was the aggressor as the accused would have us
believe. Deceased could not go for the accused
with money on the left
and a knife on the right hand. The acceptable version of events is
Pwl who told the court that he saw the deceased with an open knife
facing the accused who had a metal pipe in his hand next
coaster. Accused attacked deceased and hit deceased on the head and
the deceased began to run. Even the injury on the occipital
the head though at the back of the head is consistent with a person
who must have turned before he was hit and began
false that deceased ever chased Accused 1 from the coaster up to
Pwl's vehicle - this was not put by his counsel in that manner
Pwl. Pwl's statement to the police is entirely consistent with his
evidence in court on this point. Aware of the dangers of
witness, the assessors and I believe Pwl on the assault.
that deceased was assaulted by the passengers and Pw3, but there is
no evidence that he was hit on the head. Those people
could at best
be jointly responsible with Accused 1 for the death of the deceased.
I was worried by the fact that Pw3 said a passenger
hit deceased with
a stone on the leg and deceased fell down and he was arrested. As the
injury is not
head - this assault makes no difference. As I said the fact that Pw3
and his passengers could be the co-accused of Accused
1 does not
exonerate Accused 1. In any event if there was anything in the
statement of Metsing that exonerated Accused 1 from responsibility
for the death of deceased - this would have been brought to my
I and my
assessors find Accused 1 hit deceased on the head with a metal pipe
and this caused the death of the deceased.
issue that we have to determine is whether Accused 1 had the
requisite intention to kill deceased. We have rejected the
of Pwl that he expressed an intention to assault deceased and go to
jail for it. However, Accused 1 used a metal pipe
on the head of
deceased. Accused 1 was using an instrument that might kill that
person. In this case, Accused 1 did not go for
the deceased in a
manner that removes doubt that he had the intention to kill. What is
certain is that he hit deceased negligently.
There is no
that leaves us in no doubt that Accused 1 did not care whether death
occurs. See S v Sigwahla 1967 (4) SA 566. Consequently
given the benefit of doubt on the issue of intention to kill.
accused. This court finds you guilty of culpable homicide and not
guilty of murder.
Crown : Miss Mofllikoane
Accused : Mr. Nteso
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