1

CRI/A/50/91

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
Appeal of:

KEKELETSO
LEMENA Appellant

v

REX
Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered
bv the Honourable Mr. Justice T. Monapathi on the 14th day of June
1994

It is
important to note that when this appeal came up for hearing it was
after five years since the conviction and sentence.

It will
be observed that the Appellant was convicted on his own plea on this
charge of having stolen one horse belonging to one
MOLEFI MASIU as
the charge does more fully disclose. I agree fully with Mr. Sakoane
on behalf of the Respondent in his submissions.

The
Appellant having admitted the facts outlined by the

2

Public
Prosecutor went on to add "But I wish to remind the Public
Prosecutor that both hind legs were white touched the other
had a
large white mark." I did not construe this as amounting to a
denial of the outline or a way of reneging from his acceptance
of the
outlined facts. I am satisfied that this admission of facts cannot be
minimized, It has significance in that it is a form
of a judicial
confession in terms of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act
1981. (See TSATSANE v REX LLR 1974-1975), In mitigation
the Appellant
went on to say:- "I am sorry I stole the horse. This is my first
offence, I have said this to my own chief also."

I would
also observe, in sympathy with the Appellant, that here appeared to
have quite an overwhelming amount of evidence against
him. This I say
considering what one finds furthermore in the Public Prosecutor's
outline:- "Accused's chief would say that
the earmarks and the
brands are Accused's. From there in the company of the Accused and
the horse went to his Tsaile cattle post.
Once they met the filly ran
to its mother and sucked. The filly was still of a sucking age and
had not yet weaned", (my underlining)

I would
disagree with the learned Counsel for Appellant that all the elements
of the offence were not proved. These type of argument
has more often
than not proved not helpful when an

3

Accused
person has admitted guilt under section 240(b). The effect of such
admission by the Accused is a deliberate self denial
of an
opportunity to put one's case, give evidence and to expose himself to
full interrogation on the matter. In the absence of
any evidence to
negative the Public Prosecutor's outline the Court has to accept and
to be satisfied with the outline and return
a verdict. Admittedly all
the elements of the offence must be disclosed, Indeed there are many
advantages to be had in this procedure.
It is short and saves time.
To some Accused it is a way of showing remorse and contrition, To
some Accused it may actually amount
to a demonstrated wish to
dispense with the services of a lawyer.

As I did
indicate in Court when appeal was heard on the 14th June 1994. I
would dismiss this appeal.

T.
MONAPATHI

JUDGE

14th
June, 1994

For the
Appellant : Mr. S. Malebanye

For the
Crown : S. Sakoane