CRI/T/252/2001

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between:-

REX

V

MOTLALEPULA
MOKOKOANE

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Madam Justice N. Majara on the 27th September 2007

On the
27th September 2007, the accused in this matter appeared before me
charged with the crime of murder it being alleged that
on or about
the 22nd November 1999, and at or near Ha Ramorakane in the district
of Maseru, he unlawfully and intentionally killed
one Mosebetsi
Mokebe.

After the
indictment was read and explained to him, he pleaded guilty to
culpable homicide and Mr. Seema Crown Counsel accepted
his plea in
terms of the provisions of Section 240 }1J (a) of the Criminal
Procedure and Evidence Act of 1981.

1

Mr. Seema
outlined the evidence to the Court as follows; that on the day of the
incident the accused was overheard by one Malineo
Mokokoane when he
told 'Matankiso Keketsi that he wanted to kill the deceased because
the latter was in engaged in an overt adulterous
relationship with
his brother's wife. Later on, the accused and the deceased were seen
quarreling at the house of the accused's
brother and were then seen
fighting after the deceased had refused to leave the house as he was
so requested by the accused. That
after the fight, the accused left
the place and uttered the words; "ke mo bolaile Mosebetsi ba
habo ba ee ba lo mo phutha"
loosely translated to mean; "I
have killed him Mosebetsi his next of kin should go collect him".

Further
that Matankiso would testify that after the accused had told her that
he would kill the deceased because he was living at
his brother's
house, she subsequently saw him thereat and the deceased hit him with
a stick. She then went inside her house and
a few minutes later she
saw the accused who had a bleeding wound on the head leaving the
premises.

The
witness then went to the scene with other people and they found the
deceased outside and they carried him into the house and
washed him.
He was later reported dead. The post-mortem report would show that
the deceased died as

2

result of
a penetrating injury on the upper mid-abdomen and massive internal
bleeding from the liver.

Mr.
Tsenoli accepted the outline of the facts on behalf of the accused
after which the Court returned a verdict of guilty of culpable

homicide.

SENTENCE

Before
passing sentence, the Court was addressed by the defence in
mitigation and the Crown in reply. In mitigation, the Court was

requested to consider that the accused did not waste time and pleaded
guilty and that this is a sign of remorse. That he sincerely
believed
he had the obligation to protect and defend his late brother's name
and that the incident occurred about eight (8) years
ago which is an
un­reasonably long time for one to not know his fate and within
which he could have possibly finished serving
his sentence. That the
accused was also assaulted by the deceased and sustained injuries as
evidenced by the medical report submitted
to the Court. Mr. Tsenoli
asked the Court to give the accused a suspended sentence.

In reply,
Mr. Seema advised the Court to also consider that that the deceased
had a family whose interests have to be taken into
account.

3

All the
above were indeed taken into consideration as well as the fact that
the accused did declare openly that he would kill the
deceased and
went to his brother's house where the fight took place. After the
fight, he arrogantly said the deceased's family
should go and collect
his body which was a sign of recklessness on his part.

Further
that whatever differences might exist between people should not be
settled through resort to violence, especially where
lethal weapons
are used in the process. That the accused has to pay for his crime
even if he felt he was provoked by the deceased's
blatant display of
the adulterous affair with brother's wife. Certainly that does not
justify his life being needlessly taken away
by the accused.

Bearing
all the above in mind, the Court sentenced the accused to prison for
a period of three (3) years or to pay a fine of Ml,
500.00 in default
of payment whereby he was also advised to 'raise the head' of the
deceased. At the request of the defence Counsel,
payment of the fine
was deferred to the end of the October 2007.

N. MAJARA

JUDGE

For the
Crown : Mr. Seema

For the
defence: Mr. Tsenoli

4