IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
appeal of :

THABISO
MD Appellant

v

REX Respondent

REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT

Filed by
the Hon. Mr. Justice B.K. Molai on the 20th day of July, 1983.

I have
already dismissed this appeal and intimated that my reasons for the
decision would be filed later. These now follow

The
appellant was charged and convicted before the magistrate court of T
Y with contravention of section 124(i) read with sub-section
(4) of
the Road Traffic and Transport Order No. 15 of 1970 in that on 10th
July, 1981, he wrongfully and unlawfully drove a motor
vehicle E.1312
recklessly or negligently along the Maseru/Teyateyaneng public road
in the district of Berea and as a result collided
with another motor
vehicle D 0347. A sentence of M60 or 5 months imprisonment in default
of payment of the fine was imposed by
the trial magistrate

The
appellant appealed against his conviction on a number of grounds
which could, however, be summed up in that the conviction was
against
the weight of evidence.

2

The
evidence heard by the trial court disclosed that on the early morning
of 10th July, 1981, the appellant was travelling in his
car E 1312
along the Meseru/Teyateyaneng

public
road. He was going in the direction towards east from Maseru to
Teyateyaneng. P.W.1 Moholanyane Matlosa, was at the same
time driving
the van D.0347 along the same public road In the direction from
Teyateyaneng to Maseru.

P.W.1
testified that as he drove on the road he was travelling at the speed
of between 60 Km and 70 Km an hour and on his correct
side of the
road, namely, the left side. After taking a curve next to
Teyateyaneng bridge he noticed appellant's car which had
just crossed
the bridge about 80 yards ahead of him. The car was clearly running
at a high speed and on the wrong side of the road
i.e. on its right
side. When he realised that P.W.1 moved his van to the extreme left
and pulled it to a complete halt on the gravel
portion of the road.
He then noticed appellant's car first going to its left side and out
of the tar mark of the road before returning
to its right side and
back into the road. It then came straight to where he had parked his
van and plunged into the right portion
of the van's bonnet. The two
vehicles were damaged beyond repairs.

Appellant's
version was that after crossing Teyateyaneng bridge, he was
travelling in his correct side of the road at the speed
of between 80
km and 90 km an hour when P.W.1's van appeared at a curve. As it
appeared the van was cutting the curve. In an attempt
to avoid a
head-on collision appellant swerved his car first to the extreme
left and then to the right. In the process, and notwithstanding
his
attempt to avoid the accident, appellant's car skidded and collided
with

3

P.W.1's
van. The point of impact was more on P.W/1's lane but still in the
middle of the road. It was not on P.W.1's extreme left
side of the
road as indicated on the sketch plan - Exh B.

P.W.1!s
evidence was corroborated by that of P.W,3, Phomolo Mosia, one of the
passengers in the van. He testified that as they approached

Teyateyaneng bridge, he too could notice appellant's car running in a
zigzag on the road ahead of them. P.W.1 then stopped the
van on the
left side of road. Appellant!s car, however, came and hit It where it
had stopped.

P.W.5,
Lepane Lethunya, was one of the passengers in appellant's car. He
estimated the speed at which the appellant's car was travelling
on
the road at 100 km an hour. Shortly after they had crossed
Teyateyaneng bridge, he could feel that appellant's car was not
running normally. It suddenly careered out of the back into the road
before colliding with P.W.l's van which was going in the'opposite

direction.

According
to P.W.5. when it was hit, the van was still moving.and had not
stopped on the side of the road. This was,

however,
denied not only by P.W.1 and P.W.3 but also P.W.2.Kobo Rampubane,
who, at the time of the accident, was herding animals
in the vicinity
and actually saw that P.W.1's van had ;already^stopped on the side of
the road when it was hit by appar which had
left its correct side of
the road.

P.W.4,
Tor Chopo, was the traffic police officer who attended the scene of
accident soon after the collision. He found the two vehicles
which
were Involved in the accident still virtually stuck to each other on
the left side of the

4

road as
one drove In the direction towards Maseru.

The
drivers and other occupants of the vehicles had already been taken to
the hospital and we're not available to show him the point
of impact.
Nevertheless, he could notice many pieces of broken glasses at the
spot where the two vehicles were standing on the
side of the road and
he concluded that that was the point of impact.

The
witness proceeded to examine and pace out the scene of accident. He
subsequently compiled the motor accident report - Exh B
- according
to the sketch place of which the road curve referred to above was
running from South-east to North-west or vice versa.

It seems
to me, therefore, that if when it appeared at the curve, it was
cutting it, P.W.l's van could not, as suggested by appellant,
have
been travelling on the latter's lane of the road. Appellant's
suggestion that the reason why he suddenlly swerved his car
to the
extreme left was because P.W.l's van was cutting the curve was
clearly unconvincing.

The trial
magistrate considered the evidence as a whole and accepted as the
truth the prosecution's story. In as much as it differed
with that of
the crown witnesses, Appellant's version was rejected as false. In my
view the evidence was simply overwhelming against
the Appellant and I
could find nothing unreasonable in the conclusion reached by the
trial magistrate.

5

From the
evidence accepted by the trial court, an irresistable inference to be
drawn is that the appellant was, at the material
time, driving his
vehicle in an excessive speed and on his wrong side of the road. That
the appellant was not allowed to do - See
sections 92(1) and 95 of
the Road Traffic and Transport Order No. 15 of 1970 - and to that
extent he was negligent. The result
was that the appellant was unable
to control his vehicle which collided with that of the complainant
(P.W.1).

In the
premises, I came to the conclusion that Appellant!s contention that
the conviction was against the weight of evidence could
not be
sustained and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

B.K MOLAI

JUDGE

20th
July, 1983.

For
Appellant : Mr. Khauoe

For Crown
: Miss Surtie