CRI/T/68/88

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between:-

REX

and

KABELO
RAPAPA

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Honourable Mr. Justice, J.L. Kheola on the 9th day of
February, 1990.

The
accused is charged with murder in that upon or about the 19th day of
December, 1987 and at or near Borokhoaneng in the district
of Maseru,
and at or near Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in the district of Maseru,
the accused unlawfully and intentionally killed
'Mathabo Rapapa
{hereinafter called the deceased). The defence tendered a plea of
guilty of culpable homicide which was not accepted
by the Crown.

The
defence admitted as evidence before this Court the post-mortem
examination report prepared by Dr. Oliver who formed

2

the
opinion that death was due to massive haemorrhage due to multiple
stab wounds on the chest and back. He found a 3cm incised
wound on
the right mid-axillary line, six stab wounds on the left mid-axillary
line, five different stab wounds at the back, four
different stab
wounds on the chest and a 5cm. incised wound in the right palm.
Internally he found that the right auricle and the
inferior vena cava
were perforated, the right lung had collapsed and there was blood in
the pleural cavity. The post­mortem
examination report was marked
Exhibit A.

The
accused and the deceased were man and wife and were staying at
Borokhoaneng where 'Malebohang Tseko (P.W.3) was their landlady.

Their house was about sixty yards from that of 'Maleboharg On the
19th December, 1987 between the hours of 12.00 noon and 1.00
p.m.
'Malebohang was at her house with' Matieho Mokhethi (P.W.4 when her
children reported to her that the accused was assaulting
the
deceased. She went to accused's house and heard that there was a
scuffle in the house and the deceased was crying. The door
was
locked. She knocked very hard at the door and ordered the accused to
open. He refused. She peeped through the window and saw
that the
accused was stabbing the deceased all over the body with an iron rod
sharpened on one end - Exhibit 1. She ordered him
to stop stabbing
the deceased but he refused.

Finally
'Malebohang asked her children to call her neighbour, 'Mampho 'Nyane
(P.W.5). She came immediately and they both shouted
at the accused
pleading with him to stop stabbing the deceased. After.

3

a long
time the accused opened the door and the deceased came out crawling.
Her face and body were covered with blood and she was
unable to
stand. They took her to 'Malebohang's vehicle and carried her to
Queen Elizabeth II Hospital. Before they left for the
hospital
'Malebohang advised the accused to go and report himself to the
police but he refused. Upon her return from the hospital
the accused
came to her house and tried to talk to her but she said she did not
want to talk to him and again ordered him to go
and report himself to
the police. He said he could not do so before he had killed his wife.

'Malebohang
said that she took the threat seriously but thought that the deceased
was safe in the hospital and that was the reason
why she did not
alert the hospital authorities or the police. When the accused opened
the door he appeared to be very angry ana
moved around the vehicle
still wanting to assault the deceased. She says that she did not
observe whether or not the accused was
drunk because he was already
fighting when she saw him that day. On the following day when she
went to the hospital she found that
the deceased had died.

The
evidence of 'Matieho Mokhethi is the same with that of 'Malebohang.
She worked for 'Malebohang as a domestic helper and was
present when
'Malebohang and 'Mampho 'Nyane pleaded with the accused to stop
stabbing the deceased and to open the door. She says
that while they
were putting the deceased into the vehicle the accused came to them
and said that he wanted to finish her off.
'Malebohang said he must
kill both of them i.e. herself and the deceased. The accused said he
would finish her off at the hospital.

4

She
explained that she did not go to Upper Thamae; police station to
report the assault because the deceased was taken to the hospital.

'Mampho
'Nyane confirms that she also went to the house of the accused and
found that the door was locked. About ten minutes after
her arrival
the accused opened the door and the deceased came out crawling. As
they were putting1 the deceased into the vehicle
the accused came and
said to the deceased: "I shall kill you". The deceased was
carried to the hospital and was admitted.
Upon their return from the
hospital she went to her home. Later that afternoon the accused came
to the gate of her yard and called
her. She came out of her house and
he asked her where the woman was. She said they had left her at the
hospital. He asked if she
was still alive. Her answer was in the
affirmative. He then asked when visitors are allowed to see their
patients at the hospital.
She said at 6.00p.m. Accused then said he
wanted to go and finish her off. 'Mampho says that she did not take
accused's threat
seriously and regarded it as an empty threat despite
the fact that the accused appeared to be still very angry.

Selloane
Maepe (P.W.6) is a nurse stationed at Queen Elizabeth II Hospital. On
the 19th December, 1987 she was on duty in Ward 2.
The deceased was
admitted in her ward with multiple stab wounds which had already been
bandaged at casualty department She put
her in bed and immediately
went to the laboratory to get some blood because she had lost a lot
of blood. On her return from

5

the
laboratory the deceased reported to her that the accused came during
her absence and spoke to her in a manner she did not like,
Selloane
says that she asked for help from the security department of the
hospital. A security guard came but after some time she
told him to
go back to his work. A few minutes after the security guard had
returned to his post she saw a person rushing into
her ward. She
again went to the security department but when she came back with the
security officer the person she had seen was
no longer there. The
deceased was in a pool of blood on the floor and several nurse6 were
helping her. She was taken to the theatre
but died on the following
morning.

'Matseleng
Moshesha (P.W.7) is a nursing sister at Queen Elizabeth II Hospital.
On the 19th December, 1987 she was on duty in the
private ward when
at about 5.30 p.m. she heard people screaming inside the hospital.
She and other nurses rushed in the direction
from where the screaming
came . They met many patients in the passage but eventually came to
Cubicle A in Ware 2. They found the
deceased in a pool of blood on
the floor. She examined the patient and found that she had a big
wound on the chest and a lot of
blood was coming out. She was carried
to the theatre.

Mokhethi
Mokhethi (P.W.8) is the security officer referred to by Selloane. He
confirms that she called her to Ward 2 but whan he
arrived she said
that he must go back to his work. He complied. After about thirty
minutes the same nurse called him again. He-proceeded
to Ward 2 but
met patients in the passage. They were crying. He ran to the gate
near Blood Bank and found a soldier near the gate
and calling a man
who was standing on the other side of

6

the road
running between the hospital and Blood Bank, He went to that man with
the soldier and the man said he had not done anything.
The soldier
struck him on the head with a rifle but the man still denied that he
had stabbed any person. They asked him if he had
any knife. He said
he did not have any knife and continued to deny till they beat him
up. When they came to the duty-room he still
denied having in his
possession any knife. They again beat him up and he then took out a
knife -Exhibit 2 which was covered with
fresh blood. That man was the
accused. He was later handed over to the police who took him to the
casualty department where the
wound which he sustained when the
soldier struck him with a rifle was satured. Exhibit 2 was given to
the police.

Teboho
Thujane (P.W.9) is the deceased's elder brother and he identified her
corpse to the doctor who performed a post-mortem examination
upon it.

The
evidence of Detective Trooper Ramakeoane is to the effect that on the
22nd December, 1987 he went to the home of the accused
accompanied by
the accused. On their arrival there the accused produced an iron rod
(Exhibit 1) and gave it to him. There was dry
blood on the floor and
clothes were scattered all over the floor.

Trooper
Nono was called to the hospital on the 19th December, 1987 and found
the accused with many people inside the hospital, He
looked wild and
was forcing his way through those people in an attempt to go where
his wife was. Trooper Nono says that he was

7

given a
knife (Exhibit 2) by one of those people but he does not know who
that person was because he did not take his or her particulars.
He
denies that the accused had any wound on his head. He arrested the
accused and took him to the central charge office. On the
following
day he charged him with murder after he received a report from the
hospital that the deceased had died.

The
evidence of Trooper Nono may be discarded without any delay by
showing that he is either a Her or a not very observant person.
For
him not to have seen the wound on the head of the accused is
unbelievable because he was covered with blood as well as his
shirt.
He did not take the particulars of the soldier and the man who gave
him Exhibit 2 nor the name of any of the patients who
might have seen
what happened in Ward 2. In short he made a mess of the investigation
of this case. Detective Trooper Ramakeoane
must be equally blamed
because when the accused was handed over to him he apparently made no
attempt to find the soldier and a
witness from Ward 2.

The
accused told the Court that he married the deceased in 1983 and that
they have one child who was born in 1985. The deceased
worked at
Maseru Cabanas Hotel and he worked for the Highlands Water Project as
a driver and his station was at Ficksburg. He told
the Court that
during the week prior to the 19th December, 1987 his wife never came
home. Oh Monday, the 14th December, 1987 he
came home at about
6.00p.m. and found that the

8

deceased
was not there. He went to a hotel and bought liquor and food. He
returned to his home at 10.00p.m. and found that the deceased
was
still not there. He slept in the truck because he had no spare key.
He woke up at 4.00a.m. and found that the deceased had
not arrived.
Before he went to work he bought a new lock and changed the lock when
he came home that evening. The deceased never
came home for the whole
of that week and he drank liquor very excessively that week. He used
to come home very late after 10.00p.m.

On Friday
night he went to a bar and drank beer until 10.00 p.m. He then bought
one big bottle of Gilbeys Gin and three beers and
carried them to his
home. He sat down alone and drank the gin and the beers until
4.00a.m. when he slept. He woke up at 8.00a.m.
On the previous day he
had made a telephone call to Maseru Cabanas and he was told that the
deceased still came to work as usual.

When he
woke up at 8.00a.m. on Saturday a certain Makau or Matsau came and
took him to town. He did not stay in town for a long
time because he
was feeling tired. He returned to his home but one Samuel Makabane
came and took him to Qoaling. He returned to
his home and again drank
several beers before going to Thamae's where he continued to drink
beer. From Thamae's they proceeded
to Lower Seoli but on their way
they saw the deceased who appeared to be heading for home. She got
into a taxi going to town they
followed it and stopped it. The
deceased alighted only after the passangers had ordered her to do so.

9

The
accused told the Court that on their arrival at their home he asked
the deceased where she had been for the whole week. She
simply looked
at him and did not answer him. He repeated the question. She asked
him why he was asking her that question., He slapped
her because she
had answered him in a rude manner. She fell down and took Exhibit 1
and threw it at him and said he must leave
. her alone because she no
longer loved him. He took Exhibit 1 and stabbed her with it but he
dots not know how many times. He
stopped stabbing her when he noticed
that her face was covered with blood. He opened the door and found
'Malebohang and asked her
to take the deceased to hospital. She
agreed and conveyed her in her vehicle. He denies that he-went near
the vehicle and tried
or threatened to stab the deceased again.
However, he does not remember that 'Malebohang advised him to go and
report himself at
the charge office, nor does he remember that he
said he would go to the hospital and finish off the deceased.

After his
wife was taken to the hospital he decided to go to the central charge
office but on the way he met two people who invited
him to a bar
where he drank some beer but he does not know the quantity. From
there he went back to his home but ho does not know
what he did
there. He again left for the Central Charge Office. He remembers that
from the bus rank he walked along Kingsway Road
and when he came
opposite the National Libre a man carrying a rifle called him. He
stopped and when the man came to him he asked
him where he was going
to. He said to the charge office. He does not know what happened
after that but

10

when he
came to he noticed that he was lying on the ground and had sustained
a wound on the left side of his head. He was escorted
to the hospital
and searched. Exhibit 2 was found in the pocket of his shirt and it
was covered with blood from the wound he had
sustained.

In
cross-examination the accused told the Court that he does not know
that he went to the hospital and cannot deny the fact that
he went
there. He says that at their home he stabbed the deceased because she
had provoked him and he lost his power of self control.
Before the
present incident he had never had a quarrel with his wife.

Mr.
Matsao, attorney for the defence, conceded that there was no dispute
that the accused assaulted his wife at Borokhoaneng on
the 19th
December, 1987. He submitted that because of intoxication the accused
had no direct intention to kill the deceased. If
the accused had
direct intention he could not have-opened the door to allow the
deceased to go to the hospital, He argues that
at worst it may be
held that the accused was reckless as to what would be the
consequences of his assault.

For the
defence of intoxication to succeed the defence must establish two
very important points; namely, that the accused was so
drunk that he
did not know that what he was doing was wrong or that he did not know
what he was doing. See section 2 of the Criminal
Liability of
Intoxicated Persons Proclamation No,60 of 1938. The accused remembers
in great detail what he did from

11

about
8.00a.m. when he woke up until he met the deceased by chance at a bus
stop. He took her to their home and remembers what the
deceased said
to him and what she did before he started to stab her with Exhibit 1.
I am of the opinion that he does not remember
how many times he
stabbed her with Exhibit 1 not because of intoxication but because he
stabbed her so many times that he could
not count. He knew very well
what he was doing because up to the time when he started stabbing the
deceased he was aware of what
was happening around him. I do not
agree with suggestion that he suddenly became unaware of what he was
doing.

I do not
agree that the accused may not have formed direct intention to kill
the deceased because he opned the door to allow her
to come out.
After opening the door the accused told the Crown witnesses that he
would not go to the police to report himself before
he had finished
off the deceased. Mr. Matsau has submitted that the evidence of the
Crown witnesses on this point should not be
believed because they
contradict each other. I do not think that there is any contradiction
in their evidence concerning the threat
that he would finish off his
wife. The these women who were carrying the deceased into the vehicle
must have been in a state of
confusion and great fear because the
accused was there near the vehicle or going around it uttering those
threaten words. If there
is a minor contradiction in their evidence
it Is understandable under the circumstances. They may not have heard
same words because
they were busy carrying the deceased into the
vehicle while the accused was moving about making the threat to kill
his wife.

12

The Crown
witnesses have denied that after opening the door he said the
deceased should be taken to the hospital. I believe their
story on
this point because if the accused had intended that the deceased
should be taken to the hospitai he could not have made
the threat.
'Malebohang testified that he was moving around the vehicle and
wanting to stab the deceased again. She reprimanded
him and closed
the door of the vehicle.

'Mampho
'Nyane testified that after they had returned from the hospital the
accused came to her place and asked her about visiting
hours at the
hospital and whether the deceased was still alive. When she told him
that she was still alive and that the visiting
hour was 6.00p.m. he
said he wanted to go and finish her off.

It seems
to me that the accused expressed his direct intention to go to the
hospital and to kill the deceased. Now the question
is whether he did
go to the hospital. It is not seriously disputed that some person did
go to the hospital and stabbed the deceased
on the chest. The
evidence of Selloane Maepe who is a nurse at the hospital is that the
deceaased told her that during her (Selloaoe's)
absence the accused
came to her and said things she did not like. She) summoned the
security guard as she feared that the accused
would come back. For
some reason after a short time she ordered the security guard to go
back to his post. About thirty minutes
later she saw a man rushing
into her ward. She again went to the security department but when she
came back the deceased was lying
in a pool of blood on the floor. The
man she had seen was no more there.

13

According
to the security guard, one Mokhethi Mokhethi; after the alarm was
raised he ran out of the hospital and found a soldier
near the gate
on the western side of the hospital. He was calling the accused who
was on the other side of the road,. They went
to the accused and
arrested him.

During
the inspection in loco I observed that the accused was found almost
directly opposite the gate on the western side of the
hospital; he
was about forty-four (44) paces from Kingsway Road into High Court
Road which runs on the western side of the hospital.
The question one
may ask is, if the accused was going to the central charge office
what did he want at the gate of the hospital
which is about 44 paces
from where he would be if he was going to the central charge office.
The indications are that the accused
was coming out of the hospital
where he had just finished off his wife like he had expressed his
intention to the Crown witnesses
that he would do so. It is
significant that when the accused was asked by the soldier and the
security guard whether he had any
knife in his possession, he said he
did not have any. It was only after they had beaten him up that he
produced a brand new knife.
Its blade was covered with fresh blood
which had started to coagulate. It is significant that its handle was
not covered with any
blood. If the blood came from the­wound on
the head of the accused the whole knife ought to have be covered with
blood.

14

Mr.
Matsau has submitted that the evidence of Selloane should be rejected
because what the deceased told her was not a dying declaration

envisaged by section 226 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act,
1981. The requirement of expecta­tion of death has been
summed up
in R. V. Abdul 1905 T,S. 119 at p. 122-3 by Innes, C.J. by saying:

"The rule is that three things must have concurred. The person
must have been in danger of impending death; he must have realised

the extent of his danger so as to have given up all hope of life; and
death must have ensued."

He
submitted that the Crown has failed to adduce evidence to lay down
the basis for the said requirements. I agree with this submission.

Furthermore the declaration cannot be a dying declaration on the
second ground that it was not intended to prove the declarant's

death. The deceased was not saying that the accused had come and
stabbed her again. Her story is inadmissible hearsay that the
accused
came to the hospital and said unpleasant things to her. I shall
disregard it in making my decision on this point.

I reject
the version of the accused that he was found between the National
Library and the Blood Bank by the soldier are Mokhethi
Mokhethi. His
evidence is that he does not deny that at one time he was at the
hospital, but at the same time he tries to deny
that he went to
hospital. He is an unreliable witness. I

15

have
formed the opinion that he did go to the hospital and stabbed the
deceased with the knife - Exhibit 2 which was later found
with a
bloody blade.

Mr.
Matsau further submitted that the Crown has not established beyond a
reasonable doubt that the deceased incurred further injuries
at the
hospital. In this regard he asks the Court to compare the evidence of
Selloane Maepe and Matseleng Moshesha. The latter
said that the
deceased was not bandaged when she arrived at the scene while
Selloane says that she did not examine deceased's wounds
when she was
on the floor. He submits therefore that it cannot be held with any
amount of certainty from the evidence of the Crown
that the deceased
suffered further attacks at the hospital.

I think
Mr. Matsau has not stated the facts correctly. Selloane's evidence is
that tne wounds of the deceased had already been bandaged
at the
casualty department but that she did not examine them very closely.
She immediately went to the laboratory to get blood
because the
deceased had lost a lot of blood. 'Matseleng Moshesha does not in any
way contradict Selloane Her evidence is that
when she came to Cubicle
A in Ward 2 the deceased was on the floor and had a big wound on the
chest and a. lot of blood was coming
out. There is no doubt in my
mind that this was a fresh injury which was not there when Selloane
left for the laboratory. She had
put the deceased in the bed and
would have seen that big wound if it was there when she put her in
bed,

16

The last
question is whether the accused was provoked or not. I think this
question must be answered in the negative. The story
of the accused
is not only improbable but it is false beyond reasonable doubt. He
alleges that his wife failed to come home for
the whole week. He knew
where she worked but never went there to find out what was wrong. He
alleges that he made a telephone call
to her place of work and he was
told that she was still coming to work. Instead of going to her place
of work at 7.00p.m. when
he arrived at home he went on a drinking
spree for the whole week.

In S. v.
Ndhlovu (2) 1965 (4) S.A. 692 at p. 695 Holmes, J.A. said:

"Intoxication is one of humanity's age-old frailties, which may,
depending on the circumstances, reduce the moral blameworthiness
of a
crime, and may even evoke a touch of compassion through the
perceptive understanding that man, seeking solace or pleasure
in
liquor, may easily over-indulge and thereby do the things which sober
he would not do. On the other hand intoxication may, again
depending
on the circumstances, aggravate the aspect of blameworthiness (see
sec. 350 of the Code) as, for example, when a man
deliberately
fortifies himself with liquor to enable him insensitively to carry
out a fell design. In the result, in seeking a
basic principle in
regard to intoxication and extenuation in murder cases, it is neither
necessary no.1 desirable to say more than
that the Court has a
discretion, to be exercised judicially upon a consideration of the
facts of each case, and in essence one
is weighing the frailties the
individual with the evil of his deed".

17

Is it not
reasonable to conclude that in the present case the accused went on a
drinking spree in order to fortify himself with
liquor to enable him
insensitively to carry out a fell design? I am saying this because
the elder brother of the deceased. Teboho
Thulane (P.W.9) testified
that on the 18th December, 1987 the deceased came to her maiden home
and reported that she had marital
problems in Maseru. His story is
undoubtedly hearsay but the conduct of the accused clearly confirms
the story that they had marital
problems and that was the reason why
she stayed away from home for such a long time. If it were not so the
accused would have made
immediate inquiries about her disappearance.
He did not do anything because he knew that they were having problems
with his wife
and was not at all surprised when she avoided going
home for a full week.

The
accused says that he lost power of self-control when the deceased
told him that she no longer loved him. He slapped her and
she fell
down. When she rose she picked up Exhibit 1 and threw it at him. She
missed him. Then he took Exhibit 1 and stabbed her
with it so many
times that he does not remember how many. It seems to me that the
words that "I do not love you any more"
were not enough to
provoke an ordinary person of the class of the community to which the
accused belongs. As I have already stated
above the accused knew why
his wife was not coming home and that could not be regarded as a
sudden provocation. He had become used
to it and was taking no proper
steps to find out why she was

18

not
coming home because he knew the cause. I am of the opinion that the
provisions of the Criminal Law (Homicide Amendment) Proclamation

No.42 of 1959 do not apply to the prsent case and that provocation is
not available to accused as a defence.

In any
case even if it can be found that he was provoked he did not kill the
deceased at Borokhoaneng but at Queen Elizabeth II
Hospital, He
cannot claim that he was still provoked when he came to the hospital.

I have
found that there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the
accused did go to the hospital and finished off his wife.
He had
expressed his intention to the Crown witnesses and subsequently
carried out his intention. He denied that he had a knife
when he was
asked by the soldier and the security guard because he wanted to
distance himself from the events that had just taken
place at the
hospital. In my view this is a clear case of dolus directus. The
killing of the deceased was so well planned that
the accused cannot
be heard to say he was drunk. No drunken person can plan his actions
so well. Had it not been because of the
unknown soldier who stopped
him at the gate it would never be known who killed the deceased.

In my
view the accused is guilty of murder and I convict him accordingly.

My
assessor agrees.

J.L.
KHEOLA

JUDGE

9th
February, 1990.

19

Extenuating
Circumstances

The Court
has convicted the accused of murder; it is now its duty to determine
whether or not there are extenuating circumstances.
The onus is on
the accused to show that there are extenuating circumstances. He must
convince the Court on a balance of probabilities
of the existence of
such circumstances (R v lembete, 1947 (2) S.A. 603 (A.D); R v Balla
and others, 1955 (3) S.A. 274 (A.D.).

Mr.
Matsau submitted that at the time the accused committed the office
charged he was drunk. His mind was so affected by the intoxicating

liquor that the Court must take this factor into account. The
evidence of the accused is that he drank liquor for almost the whole

night because he only went to bed at 4.00 a.m. after he had been
drinking beer. He woke up at about 8.00 a.m.

and
started drinking at various places until he met the deceased at about
12.00 noon and took her to their home where he assaulted
her.

There is
no doubt that at the relevant time the mind of the accused was under
the influence of liquor and it is not necessary to
detemines the
exact degree to what it was affected. The most important thing to
determine is the quantity of the liquor consumed
by the accused
before the commission of the offence. In the present case the
quantity was very large.

20

The only
question which remains to be answered is the one posed by the Court
in its reasons for judgment - whether it is not reasonable
to infer
that the accused deliberately fortified himself with liquor to enable
himself insensitively to carry out a fell design.
The question was
not positively answered then but must now be answered because the
answer to it will determine whether intoxication
is to be taken as a
mitigating factor or not.

There is
no direct evidence that the accused took liquor or went on a drinking
spree for the whole of that week because he wanted
Dutch courage so
that he could insensitively kill his wife. It is also not the only
reasonable inference to be drawn from the proved
facts that he had
the death of his wife in mind when he over-indulged in intoxicating
liquor. He may have sought solace in liquor
when he discovered that
his wife had deserted him. I am of the opinion that intoxication
should not be rejected out of hand as
a factor that may be taken into
consideration when mitigating factors are determined. This should be
done despite the fact that
it was rejected as a defence.

The
question of provocation was also rejected as a defence on the ground
that even if it can be assumed that the assault at the
marital home
at Borokhoaneng followed what amounted to provocation, the assault at
the hospital took place too long after the provoca­tion
at
Borokhoaneng. The accused's anger must have cooled down during a
period of well over two hours. For purposes of mitigation I
shall
take into consideration the fact that according to their former
landlady 'Malerato Moketa (D.W.3), the couple did not live
happily

21

together
and had several fights during the three years they rented her house.
It seems that the incident presently under consideration
might have
been the last straw.

The
cumulative effect of drunkeness and provocation lessens the moral
blameworthiness of the accused. I find that there are extenuating

circumstances .

Sentence:

The fact
that the accused went to the hospital and killed his wife is an
aggravating factor. On the factors which mitigate sentence
we took
into consideration that he is a first offender. He has a minor child
to bring up; he was drunk and provoked.

For the
reasons stated above we thought that a sentence of seventeen (17)
years' imprisonment would be a deterrent one and sentenced
him
accordingly.

My
assessor agrees

J.L.
KHEOLA

JUDGE

12th
February, 1990.

For the
Crown - Mr. Mokhobo

For the
Defence - Mr. Matsau.