CRI/A/19-21/82

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
Appeal of :

RAPHAEL
MAHLAHA 1st Appellant

CHAKA
MAKAU 2nd Appellant

MPHO
MAKAU 3rd Appellant

V

REX
Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the hen. Mr. Justice M.P. Mofokeng on the 10th August, 1982.

Appellant,
together with two others, was charged in the subordinate court of
Leribe with the crime of theft. The amount involved
was M4,662.75. I
shall refer to appellant and the two others as accused 1, 2 and 3
respectively.

when the
charge was put to the three accused they pleaded guilty and the
prosecution accepted such a plea and in terms of S. 240
of the
Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981, the prosecutor stated the
facts as disclosed by the evidence in his possession
and this was
briefly as follows:

The three
accused had planned to steal the money from Hlotse High school.
Accused 3 worked at the school and had received an amount
of money as
stated earlier. Then while she was in her office, accused 1 entered
and made away with the money. Accused 2 had been
left by accused 1 in
the car somewhere in town and accused 3 knew this fact. when she
thought that accused 1 had reached the car,
accused 3 came out of the
office crying but her screams were somewhat impeded

2

by a
piece of cloth put in her mouth. However, people heard her muffled
cries. She was untied and she made a report.

It is not
quite revealed how, but accused 3 made an explanation to the police
as a result of which accused 1 was met and he produced
a cash amount
of M652.03. Similarly-accused 2 produced a cash amount of M1,282.70.
There were some charred papers which clearly
showed they belonged to
Hlotse High School. These were found at a spot pointed out by accused
2.

Accused 2
and 3 were said to be "husband" and wife. But how they are
married, is not revealed. It is not very important
as both pleaded
guilty.

Within a
short space of time only a quarter of the stolen cash money was
recovered. The question is: What happened to the rest?
The accused
gained by their misdeed. This is worth pondering about when the
question of sentence is being considered by our courts.

As the
prosecutor rightly pointed out in his recorded address to the court,
the crime was well-planned.

The
prosecutor again requested a severe punishment to be meted out to the
accused even though they were first offenders. The learned
magistrate
spoke of taking necessary measure to "eradicate" theft.

The
learned magistrate, who is a magistrate of long experience not only
in his district but in many other districts as well, knows
the menace
of theft of money from employers (be it government or not) and, in my
view was perfectly entitled to take the fact of
the prevalence of the
particular crime with which the accused were charged, into
consideration

3

(R. v.
Boesigo. 1956(1) S.A. 234 at 237H).

This is a
crime which come before the courts daily.

The
appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE.

For the
1st Appellant : Mr, Makhene

For the
2nd & 3rd Appellants : Mr. Modisane

For the
Respondent : Mr. Khauoe