CRI/T/36/81

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter of :

REX

v

GOERGE
MOKOTJOMELA

REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT

Filed by
the Hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Justice T.S. Cotran on the 17th day of
May, 1982

On the
6th May 1982 I found the accused George Mokotjomela, who was indicted
before me on a charge of murdering Chaba Rantso (the
deceased) at or
near Ha Popopo in the district of Berea on or about 12th April 1981,
guilty as charged but with extenuating circumstances
and sentenced
him to 9 years' imprisonment. I said reasons will be filed later and
these now follow :

It is
common cause that the accused inflicted six stab wounds on the
deceased, five on the back, and one on the chest. The latter

succumbed to his injuries after walking, assisted, some 50 yards.

The
killing occurred in broad day light in the presence of the chief of
the village Letsika Mokaoli (PW3) and others.

The only
question for the Court to decide is whether the killing amounted to
culpable homicide, as Mr. Snyman for the defence submits,
or to
murder with extenuating circumstances as the Crown submits. In the
particular circumstances of the case I did not consider
it necessary
to have "two stages" in the trial.

There is
no doubt at all that the deceased deliberately took three heads of
cattle to graze on a piece of land situate

2

within
sight of accused's house (see the sketch Exhibit A). The deceased,
who claimed the land, left the animals with herdboys and
he himself
proceeded to a tree plantation (once in dispute between them but the
deceased had, it was common cause, obtained a Court
Judgment in his
favour) to chop wood. The accused saw the deceased's animals grazing
and called his neighbours to bear witness
to this trespass and sent
someone to call the chief of the village.

Chief
Mokaoli arrived at the scene in the afternoon and sent a messenger to
call the deceased. The deceased came. There was an argument
between
the accused and the deceased. The deceased (known as a litigious
person) told the chief that he had obtained a Court Judgment
in
respect of the land. However the deceased did not produce a copy of
this Judgment (and subsequent enquiries at the Local Court
revealed
no such Judgment) and chief Mokaoli, unable to resolve the matter
himself, told the deceased to take his animals away
but ordered that
both he and the accused present themselves before the senior chief on
the following day a Monday. The accused
says that that decision was
no decision at all. I do not agree. Chief Mokaoli thought that
accused and deceased were satisfied
and the meeting dispersed. The
deceased departed taking a downhill northern direction.

The chief
says that after a few seconds he heard the deceased scream "I
have been stabbed" and looking back he saw the
accused, from
some 10 - 12 paces, pulling out a knife with both hands from
deceased's back and again stabbed him several times.
By the time the
chief reached them, the deceased had turned towards the accused, and
he stabbed deceased once again on the chest
whilst the chief was
almost between them.

Two other
eye witnesses, Mpe Seeisa (PW4) and Mapeshoane Seeisa (PW5), who also
were on their way home after the meeting (but not
as close as the
chief) give a different version from that of the chief although both
agree that the deceased left the meeting first.
They did not see the
accused follow the deceased but they admit that he must have done so.
Both say that their attention was drawn
not by a scream from the
deceased, but when they heard accused's angry voice "Are you
saying here in my own father's home
that this land is yours?" or
words to that effect. These two witnesses say they saw

3

accused
and deceased grappling face to face and Mpe thought that accused
inflicted the wound on the chest first. Mapeshoane, who
was
immediately dispatched to call for help and inform the police says he
did not see a knife. I accept however the chief's version
as the true
one for he was nearer and I could discern from these two other
witnesses some bias in favour of the accused.

The only
words that have been said by the deceased that could remotely be
provocative are the words "I have a Judgment and
anyone who does
not like it can go to court or do whatever he likes". The chief
says that these words were uttered by the
deceased at the meeting. It
was the deceased's attitude to the dispute throughout. Mpe and
Mapeshoane on the other hand say that
the deceased uttered these
words as he left the meeting. I believe the chief is truthful. Even
if the words were uttered at the
end they do not amount In law to
provocation Justifying the reduction of the charge to one of culpable
homicide.

CHIEF
JUSTICE

17th
May,1982

For Crown
: Mr. Lenono ) with copy of Judgment.

For
Defence: Mr. Snyman)

Notes on
Sentence :

The
deceased was an elderly man of 60-65, unarmed, and his back turned,
when the attack commenced. The accused is only 44 and of
the same
built as the deceased. Provocation has already been taken into
account as an extenuating circumstance and in my opinion,
cannot be
taken any further.

CHIEF
JUSTICE