CRI/A/37/82

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
Appeal of :

MOHAPI
NTABE Appellant

v

REX
Respondent

REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT

Filed by
the Hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Justice T.S. Cotran on the 29th day of
December,1982

I have
disposed of this appeal on the 22nd December 1982 in the manner that
appears later in this Judgment. My reasons follow.

The
appellant was convicted of an offence created by s. 337 of the
Criminal Procedure and Evidence Proclamation as amended (now
s. 343
of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981) and was sentenced to
two years imprisonment.

He was
originally charged with theft of a motor vehicle.

The
charge upon which the appellant was convicted was framed as an
alternative charge.

There is
no merit whatsoever in the appeal against conviction. The vehicle, in
question was stolen in Vereeniging in the Transvaal
on 7th March 1980
and was found in the appellant's possession at Motimposo in Lesotho
on the 14th March 1980, i.e. only 7 days
later. The explanation that
the appellant opted to give was far fetched and extremely unlikely.

The
appellant should, in my view, have been convicted on the main charge
or at best for him on receiving property knowing it to
be stolen. I
do not however propose to disturb the magistrate's finding for it
will only amount to my engaging in an academic exercise.
I confirm
the conviction.

2

The
substantive sentence of two years imprisonment has not caused me a
sense of shock either. What has caused me a sense of shock
is the
fact that it took the learned magistrate until the 5th March 1982 -
i.e. nearly two years to dispose of a straightforward
case where the
Crown had all the witnesses available and where the applicant was at
no time responsible for the slightest delay.

An
accused person is entitled to a speedy trial. Sometimes this is not
possible for example when the accused absconds and is rearrested,
or
when difficulties arise in tracing witnesses, but neither of these
(or other) factors obtained here. The reason for the inordinate
delay
appears to have been solely the learned magistrate's own convenience
and the appellant advocate's own convenience, with the
result that
the charge, even though proved, had been lying over this appellant's
head for two years. He was faithfully making one
appearance after the
other but nothing seems to have happened from November 1980 to March
1981, and nothing happened from April
1981 to the March 1982. In the
circumstances I am prepared to suspend one year of the sentence for a
period of three years from
today on condition that appellant be not
convicted of an offence involving dishonesty during the period of
suspension.

CHIEF
JUSTICE

29th
December 1982

For
Appellant : Adv. Monapathi

For
Respondent:Mr. Kabatsi