CRI/T/5/04

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between:

REX V
MOKOALELI THAPELI AND 5 OTHERS

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Madam Justice N. Majara on the 31st August. 2007

This is a
case of murder against the six (6) accused persons. In terms of the
indictment it is alleged that on or about the 23rd
July 1996 and at
or near Mahausung in the district of Mokhotlong all the accused
acting in concert did each, the other or all of
them, unlawfully and
intentionally kill one Thabiso Shelile Rantsitile. All of them
pleaded not guilty to the charge.

1

The
evidence of the Crown consisted of testimonies of five witnesses,
four (4) admitted statements which were marked Al, A2, A3,
and A4
respectively and the postmortem report which was admitted and marked
exhibit "A". The evidence of the Crown is
to the effect
that on the above mentioned day P.W.I, P.W.3 and the deceased were
herding animals in an open veld when the accused
persons arrived one
after the other. Upon their arrival, accused no. 1 who was in front
hit the deceased on the forehead with a
stick whereas accused no.4
hit him with a stone (the size of a fist) according to P.W.1's
testimony.

Further
that when the deceased tried to run away, accused no.2 arrived and
hit him with a sword at the back of the head. According
to the
testimony of P.W.I accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 also arrived and chased
the deceased whilst at the same time hitting him with
stones. The
deceased fell down whereupon A3 hit him with a stick while A6 hit him
with a stone on the head using both his hands.

The
witness also testified that the accused then uttered the words, let
us finish with these devils' in reference to him and P.W.3
and that
they both ran away to give a report to P.W.2. Upon returning with
other villagers, they found the deceased lying where
he had left him
and he, P.W.I observed that the

2

deceased
had an open depressed wound on the head, an open one at the back of
the head and both his legs were broken.

P.W. 3 in
turn told the Court that when he arrived at the scene, Al was in a
fighting mood and asked them why they were grazing
cattle in his
field whereupon he hit the deceased with a stone on the forehead and
he and P.W. 1 told the latter to run away. The
witness told the Court
further that the deceased sat down and told them he was removing his
boots and asked P.W. 1 to leave his
stick. He then got up and went to
Al who also came towards him whilst at the same time throwing stones
at him.

This
witness added that the two then met and struggled over a stick until
the deceased hit Al with it. That, they then ran away
and he saw A2
approaching and as they were about to disappear from sight, he also
saw the other accused arrive. The witness also
told the Court that
the topography of the area is such they kept disappearing out of and
reappearing in sight of the scene. He
added that he did not notice
whether the rest of the accused were armed or not because he was at
that time some distance away.

The
witness added that it was snowing and as a result he could not see
clearly. After he had driven the horse out of Al's field
where they
had left it, he went home and met the villagers

3

on the
way. P.W.3 also testified that he joined the villagers and went with
them to where the deceased was and that he did not get
very close to
him and thus only observed the wound on the forehead. This witness
added that the deceased was in Al's field at this
particular time.

P.W.2
testified that she knew the deceased as he used to herd her animals.
That, on the day of the incident, P.Ws. 1 and 3 arrived
at her house
and gave her a report, following which she and Chief Halereoe Lesefa
went to the veld where they found the body of
the deceased. It was
her further evidence that she noticed several wounds on the body of
the deceased including a jagged one on
the jaw, another one at the
back of the head, which per her testimony and I might add those of
P.W.I and P.W.3 was caused by a
sword, as well as other wounds all
over the body including the legs.

It was
also her testimony that from her observation, the wounds on the
deceased appeared to have been caused with a sharp object.
From
there, she went to report the matter to Chief Makabelo Sekonyela
following which the deceased was airlifted to a morgue in
Mokhotlong.

P.W.4's
evidence was briefly that he is the headman of the deceased's village
and after he received a report concerning the death
of the deceased
from his relatives he raised an alarm in

4

response
to which he and other villagers went to the scene. It was his
evidence that it was at Al's field in a reserved area. He
further
told the Court that he observed the deceased from a distance because
he did not get close to him and he noticed that the
latter had blood
on his head and blankets. Upon arrival back at the village he
reported the matter to his senior chief.

P.W.5 was
one of the investigating officers in this case. His testimony was
that he attended the scene and found the deceased lying
in a veld and
he observed that he had sustained three (3) open wounds on the head,
one on the arm, two on the chest and other 'minor'
ones on both hands
and that his left arm was broken.

The
witness also the Court that he conveyed the body to the Mokhotlong
mortuary and that on the 30th of the same month he and other
police
officers were on duty when Al arrived carrying two sticks and a sword
and proceeded to give them an explanation. The witness
identified the
sticks as being the same ones before the Court. He was however barred
from handing them in as he testified that
he did not know who labeled
and kept them in his custody or what happened to the sword since he
was subsequently transferred from
Mokhotlong.

5

Two of
the admitted statements were identifying ones which basically
contained a description of the deceased's wounds. According
to their
contents, the deceased had two open wounds on the head, one on the
forehead, another one on the back of the head, one
on the left arm, a
broken hand and about four open wounds on the left and right abdomen.
The two other statements were those of
the police officers who
arrested the accused and charged them respectively.

The
post-mortem report was handed in and admitted by this Court to form
part of the evidence. I however find it convenient at this
stage to
mention that the defence had raised an objection to the handing in of
the report for the reason that they wished to cross-
examine its
author, mainly because they did not agree with some of its contents.

The Court
then directed that the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem be
subpoenaed but was informed that after diligent search
for him he
could not be found whereupon Counsel were asked to address the Court
on the issue of the handing in of the report. After
I heard
submissions from both sides, I made the ruling that the said report
should be handed in as a document containing prima
facie evidence.
This I did on the basis of the provisions of Section 223 (7) of the
Criminal and Evidence Act of 1981 (CP &
E).

6

The
provisions thereof read as follows:-

"In any criminal proceedings in which any facts ascertained by a
duly qualified medical practitioner in regard to any injury
or state
of mind or condition of body of a person or his opinion as to the
cause of death of a person, or any facts ascertained
by a veterinary
practitioner as to any injury or his opinion as to the cause of death
to any animal may be proved by a written
report signed and dated by
such medical or veterinary practitioner and that report shall be
prima facie evidence of the facts recorded
in it”

Whilst I
appreciated the argument raised by the defence, my understanding of
the section is that it does not mean that the contents
of such a
report are at this stage, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather,
they only constitute prima facie evidence which means
it is still
challengeable by the other side. Thus, the issue of whether or not
the Court can accept the contents themselves as
having been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt is in my opinion, a different matter which
should be taken into consideration together
with all the evidence
before the Court.

In other
words, my allowing the handing in of the report did not per se
translate into unequivocal admission of the contents as
having been
proved in accordance with the standard of proof in criminal matters.

7

Coming
back to the said report, it reveals that death was due to a head
injury, a fractured left leg and hemorrhagic shock. On external

appearances, the report further states that the deceased was in a
good nutritious state, had sustained a gun shot wound on the
left
leg, a wound on the right hand, 3 open wounds on the
tempero-occipital region and whip marks on the posterior chest. It
also
revealed that as far as the skull and its contents go, the
deceased had fractured occipital bones and sub-dural hemorrhage of
the
occipital region. As I have already indicated above, I am still
yet to deal with the question of proof at a later stage.

At the
close of the Crown evidence the defence moved an application for the
discharge of all the accused persons in terms of the
provisions of
Section 175 (3) of the CP & E. After consideration of the
evidence before it, the Court found that the crown
had discharged its
onus of establishing a prima facie case against all the accused
persons and ruled that they all had a case to
answer.

Firstly,
the evidence had established that the deceased was assaulted and
killed at the scene and all the accused had been placed
thereat.
Although there were some inconsistencies in so far as the evidence of
the crown witnesses is concerned, it is the opinion
of this Court
that these were not so material as

8

to cast
doubt on their credibility and/or cause any serious damage to their
evidence as a whole.

In
addition, whilst in its totality Al's projected defence during cross-
examination of the Crown witnesses was that he acted in
self-defence,
and that A2 only intervened upon his arrival at the scene, whereas A4
arrived after the fight had stopped and that
the others were not
present, the Court found that on the contrary, the evidence of the
Crown not only placed all of them at the
scene but also showed that
they all partook in the assault and as such, they all had a case to
answer.

The
evidence of the defence consisted of the testimonies of all the
accused and D.W.7 an eye witness.

In his
defence, Al testified that after he received a report that some
animals were seen grazing in his field, he went to report
the matter
to the chief who told him to go and impound the animals whilst he
(the chief) looked for other people to come and assist.
He added that
he took his walking stick and went to the field and that as he
approached he saw the deceased and two other boys
(P.W. 1 and 3)
herding animals thereat.

It was
Al's further evidence that after he crossed a gorge which he had to
in order to get to his field, he saw the deceased who
appeared angry
coming towards him and he

9

asked the
latter where he was going leaving animals in his field but was not
favoured with a reply. Further, that when they were
about two (2)
paces apart, the deceased raised his stick in an attempt to strike
him but he picked up a stone, hit him with it
and when he fell down,
he went past him to where the animals were.

Al also
told the Court that before he could round up the animals the deceased
came to attack him and that he in turn picked up stones
and hit him
with them until they got hold of each other and started to struggle
for the stick that the deceased was holding. He
then managed to
dispossess the deceased and hit him all over the body with it and
that at this time A3 arrived and attempted to
intervene.

It was
this accused's further testimony that none of his co-accused ever
assaulted the deceased and that, they i.e. Al and A3 proceeded
to
drive the animals out of his field and as they did they saw a stick
and a sword lying in the field and they picked them up and
later
handed them in to the police.

A3 in
turn testified that he did arrive at the scene of the fight but only
to intervene and separate Al and the deceased. He added
that upon his
arrival thereat, Al was throwing stones at the deceased and then they
met and struggled over a stick until Al grabbed
it and hit the
deceased with it whereupon he

10

A3
reprimanded him and got hold of him. At this time A4 arrived and they
drove the animals out of the field.

A4 in
turn gave evidence to the effect that he went to the scene with the
intention of separating the two only to meet Al and A3
on the way and
they were already driving the animals so that he never arrived at the
scene.

On their
part A2, 5 and 6 respectively all testified that they never partook
in the fight as they all had an alibi. A2 told the
Court at that time
he was at a place called Lithakong which is about four (4) kilometers
away from the scene whereas A5's evidence
was that he was in the
mountains chopping wood. A6 on the other hand testified that he was
at a faraway cattle post.

The last
witness for the defence was D.W.7 whose evidence was that on the day
of the incident he was herding animals uphill and
that he saw cattle
grazing in Al's field. It was his testimony that when Al approached
his field the deceased went to meet him
clearly in a fighting mood as
he was insulting Al.

D.W.7
further told the Court that when Al asked the deceased why he was
herding animals in his field the latter rushed towards him
with his
stick and that Al picked up a stone and

11

hit the
deceased with it and the latter fell down. He added that Al proceeded
to round up the animals and the deceased got up and
came to him and
that they struggled over the stick that the deceased was holding
until Al broke free, ran and picked up a stone
and hit the deceased
with it. He then left him there to drive the animals away.

The
witness further testified that at this time A3 arrived and intervened
and that he only saw A4 at the time that the cattle were
being driven
away.

I now
proceed to consider the evidence and to determine the issue whether
the accused persons assaulted and killed the deceased
person on that
fateful day. That Al did hit the deceased has not been denied save
for the defence to argue that it is the deceased
who was the
aggressor and Al was acting in self defence.

I have
already stated that two of the Crown witnesses testified to the fact
that all the accused did arrive at the scene albeit
with the rider
that they did not arrive at the same time, Al having arrived first.
During cross-examination of these witnesses,
many questions were put
to them with regard to the statements they made to the police
vis-a-vis their testimonies before this Court.
The main purpose of
the questions was to show that the witnesses' evidence was
inconsistent.

12

Indeed,
as I mentioned earlier, there were some inconsistencies such as for
instance P.W.1's evidence that words were exchanged
between Al and
the deceased, the fact that Al had uttered words to the effect that
they should go and rouse their big brother (this
in reference to the
deceased who was lying on the ground) as well as the fact that P.W.I
had not mentioned in his statement to
the police that the accused
also said they were going to kill them, the devils'.

However,
but for the above mentioned contradictions, the rest of the Crown's
evidence especially as regards the presence of all
the accused at the
scene and the part that each other accused allegedly took in the
assault was not successfully rebutted by the
defence. In my opinion,
the said inconsistencies were not of a material nature as to cause
any substantial damage to the rest of
the evidence.

In
addition, the Court found the evidence of P.W.3 who was the only
other eyewitness aside from P.W.I, even more probable in that
he did
not try to hide any of the facts from the Court such as his evidence
that after he got up from where he had fallen, the
deceased took his
stick and went back to Al with the obvious intention of fighting
back. This evidence was omitted by P.W.1.

13

However,
according to P.W.3's testimony, whilst he agreed that when the fight
initially started, Al was without company, he informed
the Court that
as he was running away but before he disappeared from sight, he saw
all the other accused (all of whom he mentioned
by name) arrive,
although it was also his testimony that he did not notice whether
they were armed or not especially because the
snow that was still
falling was blinding him. The Court gained the impression that this
was not a biased witness.

In
addition, the unchallenged evidence of P.W.5 was that Al later
voluntarily arrived at the charge office and handed over two sticks

and a sword. The content of this evidence was not challenged safe
that the defence raised an objection against his handing the
exhibits
for as Mr. Khauoe correctly argued, the witness testified that after
the sticks and sword were handed in he is not the
one who labeled
and/or kept them in accordance with the legal requirements governing
same. The said objection therefore, had nothing
to do with the
factual content of the evidence itself, including the fact that Al
acted of his own volition. In my opinion this
evidence corroborates
that that of P.W. 1 in respect of the allegation that A4 hit the
deceased with a sword whereas the other
accused hit him with stones.

14

This
brings me to the evidence of the post-mortem report. I have already
shown that this was admitted as constituting prima facie
proof of its
contents in terms of the provisions of S223 of the CP & E. I have
also shown that at the time the Crown applied
to hand it in as part
of the evidence Mr. Khauoe raised his concern with regard to the
contents of the report especially in relation
to the one referring to
a gunshot wound.

In the
opinion of the Court this was a legitimate concern especially when
one takes into account the fact that none of the evidence
either from
the side of the Crown or the defence ever said anything about having
seen firearm and or hearing any shots fired or
that any shells and/or
evidence in that respect was found at the scene.

It is
unfortunate that the doctor who carried out the post­mortem
report could not be found so that he could shed some light
in this
regard. However, it is my view that apart from this one discrepancy,
the rest of the contents as already quoted above namely,
the
description of some of the wounds which suggests the use of a sharp
object, tally with the rest of the evidence of the Crown
which in my
opinion supports the evidence that a sword (being a sharp object) and
having been handed in by A1 was also used in
the attack.

15

In
addition, in his evidence in chief, P.W. 1 testified that he saw A2
strike the deceased with a sword. Al and A3 in turn told
the Court
that they found a sword at the scene although they disclaimed
ownership thereof. However, the totality of the evidence
including
the testimony of P.W.5 that Al did when all taken into account leave
me in no doubt that not only are the contents of
the report with the
exception of the gunshot wound highly probable but that they are
true.

Over and
above all this, the admitted statements of the identifying witnesses
illustrate that the deceased had different wounds
with some being
specifically described as open ones including that he had also
sustained broken limbs. All of these were also mentioned
by P.W.5
during his testimony. As I have already stated, all these factors
lead me to the conclusion that indeed the deceased was
struck with a
stick, stones and a sable on that fateful day.

On the
other hand, whilst in their defence all the accused but for Al, A3
and A4 denied having been at the scene on that day, in
other words,
they pleaded alibi, this particular defence was never put to the
Crown witnesses during their cross-examination as
Ms Kanono rightly
pointed out in her submissions. Indeed most of the questions were
aimed at bringing out the inconsistencies in
their evidence that I
have already mentioned above. For this reason, the Court was

16

denied
the opportunity of hearing what the reaction of the witnesses would
be to this defence.

In the
case of Lefaso V R 1990-95 LAC 44 at 48 when dealing with the issue
of an alibi that was never raised in cross-examination,
Schutz P (as
he then was) emphasized the need for the defence to put the salient
parts of the defence case to the relevant Crown
witnesses in order to
give them a chance to counter it and also so as not to give the Crown
Counsel the impression that a fact
is not in issue when it has been
stated before the Court and was not challenged in cross-examination.

Accordingly,
in the present case, it is this Court's view that the only inference
e that can be drawn from this failure on the part
of the defence is
that the alibi was concocted as an afterthought. Further, whilst it
is trite that the burden to disprove an alibi
is on the Crown, it is
also undeniable that such alibi has to first be proved by the
defence. It is only in that event that the
burden would shift onto
the Crown to disprove it. See the case of R v Biya 1952 (4) SA 514 at
521.

With
regard to Al's defence to wit, self defence, Mr. Khauoe made the
submission that in casu, the evidence of the Crown clearly

established that the accused was acting in self-defence. I did
mention earlier that in his testimony which this Court

17

has
accepted as true, P.W.3 told the Court that after he got up from
where he had fallen, the deceased took his stick and went to
Al.

However,
this evidence notwithstanding, Al also testified especially during
cross-examination, that he threw many stones at the
deceased and that
his legs got broken in the process. He added that despite this fact,
the deceased kept advancing until they struggled
over the stick. He
denied that after he had fallen down he continued to hit him with the
stick.

I must
say that I find this evidence highly improbable but false beyond
doubt. In my view, a normal human being cannot manage to
continue
advancing towards an opponent and struggle over a stick with him yet
his legs have been broken. The only inference I can
draw from this
admission that the deceased's legs broke during the fight is that
this happened after he had already been dispossessed
of his stick and
had fallen down.

For this
reason, even if this Court were to believe that when he hit the
deceased, Al was indeed acting in self-defence for the
reason that
there is evidence that the deceased got up and went to him holding
his stick, the rest of the evidence that has been
placed before the
Court as well as that regarding the

18

nature of
the wounds that were found on the deceased's body, speak for
themselves, that Al exceeded by far, the bounds of self-defence.
In
my opinion, this case is clearly

distinguishable
from that of Rex V Manuel Ponte Penedo 1978 (2) LLR 165 at 187 quoted
to this Court wherein the Court found that
the accused was acting in
self-defence.

I may
also mention that it is also surprising that the deceased who was
purportedly the aggressor according to Al and D.W.7 did
not manage to
hurt him at all yet, he ended up not only with the numerous wounds
including broken limbs, but died as a result of
the seriousness of
the injuries. It was also D.W.7's evidence that Al only threw one
stone at the deceased yet Al himself testified
that he hit him with
many stones. I accordingly find their evidence as not only highly
improbable, but false beyond doubt.

I have
already mentioned that P.W.I testified that Al was joined by all his
brothers in the assault and this evidence was corroborated
by P.W.3
even though it only in so far as their having arrived at the scene is
concerned. In my opinion, the fact that their alibi
was never raised
in cross-examination of the Crown witnesses supports my conclusion
that their evidence is false which in turn
leads me to find that the
reason they lied is because they partook in the assault as it was
alleged by the Crown witnesses.

19

It should
also be borne in mind that this incident came about as a result of
the allegation that the deceased had been herding animals
in Al's
field for three (3) days. Assuming this to have been case, i.e. that
the deceased had let his animals to graze in Al's
field it was a
highly provocative fact which necessitated that the owner of the
field should take action. Any normal and reasonable
person would have
been angered by such actions.

However,
this does not mean that the accused should have acted outside the
law. Unfortunately, instead of impounding the animals
as they were
supposed to and had been so permitted by the chief, the accused and
his siblings resorted to self-help and assaulted
the deceased to a
point where he lost his life.

Even if
the Court were to believe that the deceased had obstructed them from
rounding up the animals, in my opinion they should
have gone back to
the chief to report this fact so that appropriate action could be
taken, although how this could have been possible
when they obviously
outnumbered him especially after the other two had fled belies this
suggestion.

20

I also
find the evidence of Al and A2 that they suddenly saw the sword lying
there without knowing where it came from as false especially
in light
of the fact that P.W.1 testified that he saw A2 strike the deceased
with it. P.W. 5 also said Al brought it to the charge
office. The
accused in turn did not mention having seen it until at the time when
they were driving the animals away. If it indeed
belonged to the
deceased, Al would definitely have seen it at the time they were
struggling over the stick and/or as he dropped
it.

Finally,
I find that the totality of the evidence that has been placed before
this Court leads to one conclusion, to wit, Al and
his siblings were
so incensed by the audacity of the deceased's letting animals graze
in his field (understandably so) that they
decided to go and deal
with him in the manner that they did and thus acted with a common
purpose.

With
regard to the question whether they acted with the intention to kill
the deceased even assuming that at the time they assaulted
him the
accused did not possess the direct intention to kill the deceased, it
is my view that they ought to have seen that their
actions might
result in his death but they went ahead with the assault, this
possibility notwithstanding. In other words it is
my finding that
they reconciled themselves with the ensuing result and were reckless
whether death would occur or not. See the
case of R v Mahloko Mahloko

21

CRI/T/6/03
and that of S v Malinga & Ors 1963 (1) SA 692

at 695
quoted therein.

This is
further buttressed by the fact that even after the deceased was lying
down seriously injured and bleeding from the wounds,
the accused
simply ignored him and continued with their business as if nothing
had happened. Surely this kind of conduct belies
the suggestion that
the accused did not have the requisite men's rea to kill the
deceased. The possibility that he was lying there
dead was enough to
cool their tempers even assuming without suggesting that they had
acted in the heat of the moment.

For all
the above reasons, I find that the Crown has successfully discharged
its onus of establishing the guilt of all the accused
persons beyond
a reasonable doubt and that the killing of the deceased was not only
unlawful but was also intentional on the strength
of the decision in
Rex v Ndhlovu 1945 AD 369 at 386 quoted to this Court.

I
accordingly find all of them guilty of murder as charged. My
assessors agree with me on this finding.

In my
opinion I also find that there are extenuating circumstances herein
as follows:

22

There was
some amount of provocation for the reason that evidence has revealed
that the deceased and his companions were herding
animals in the
filed of Al. It is a well known fact that fields are most people's
source of livelihood especially in the rural
areas.

The
evidence has also established that the deceased had a good chance to
run away from the assault especially in its initial stages
so that he
could have avoided his death, but instead, he decided to go back and
engage in a fight with Al.

SENTENCE

This is
the most difficult part in any criminal matter especially one that
involves loss of life. Before passing sentence, my assessors
and I
were addressed at length by Mr. Khauoe on behalf of the defence in
mitigation. He pleaded with the Court to take into account
the fact
that all the accused persons are first offenders who but for one, are
in the prime of their lives and that apart from
this one unfortunate
incident, are law-abiding citizens.

Further
that as the Court has already shown in finding that there were
extenuating circumstances, provocation was established without
which
this incident would not have taken

23

place and
also that the accused's men's rea was found to have been dolus
eventualis as opposed to being directus.

In
addition, the deceased not only provoked the accused in grazing
animals in Al's field, but he also offered resistance when they
went
to impound his animals and went to put up a fight instead of removing
the animals from the field. The Court was also informed
that all the
accused were married men whose main source of livelihood is farming
and livestock respectively and that they all have
several dependants
including of orphaned children of their relatives and elderly
parents.

Lastly,
that the accused are simpletons from the mountains who are neither
sophisticated nor educated so that their behavior should
be viewed
with some amount of understanding and tolerance as opposed to that of
a reasonable man who would be expected to react
differently to a
similar situation with the benefit of education and sophistication.

Keeping
all the above factors in mind, the court also took into account the
following factors; that all of eleven (11) years have
passed since
the incident occurred and the matter was left hanging on the heads of
the accused for all this time. There was no
premeditation on the part
of the accused to commit

24

murder
and from the onset all of them have been well-behaved and attended
trial faithfully to its finality despite it having dragged
on for
almost two (2) years with them having to travel to and from far up in
Mokhotlong. Further, that the accused are not hardened
criminals who
deserve to be incarcerated in prison for a long period.

I have
also considered the other side of the coin which is the need to
censure violent behaviour in to discourage and deter other
members of
society from engaging in similar conduct in the future and to mark
the displeasure of the Court at the unnecessary loss
of a young life.

In my
opinion, the incident could have easily been avoided, especially
because the accused far outnumbered the deceased who was
merely a
young man of tender age and nothing prevented them from having just
tied him up and taken him before the relevant authorities.

It is in
the light of all the above considerations that I accordingly find
that the appropriate sentence herein would be that of
imprisonment
for a period of four (4) years with respect to all the accused and I
so order.

25

N. MAJARA

JUDGE

For the
Crown : Ms Kanono

For the
Defence: Mr. Khauoe

Mr.
Mahase

26