Mpali v Nthunya and Others (C of A (CRI) 13 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 16 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COUR T OF AP P E AL OF LE S OTHO C OF A (CR I) NO.1 3 / 2 0 1 1 In th e m a tter b etween : 'MAHOLOMO MP ALI AP P ELLANT AND THE LE AR NE D MAGIS TR ATE – MR S M. NTHUNYA F IR S T R E S PONDE NT CLE R K OF COUR T – MOKHOTLONG MAGIS TR ATE ’S COUR T S E COND R E S P ONDE NT THE ATTOR NE Y GE NE R AL THIR D R E S PONDE NT COR AM: RAMODIBE DI, P S MALBE RGE R J A HOWIE , J A HE AR D: DE LIVE R E D: 1 2 APRIL 2 0 1 2 2 7 APRIL 2 0 1 2 S UMMA R Y Rev ie w – Of d ecis ion of a Magis tra te ’s Cou rt – Pres id in g Magis tra te s ittin g d e s p ite h er prior k n ow le d ge of th e facts of th e ca s e in h er a d m in is tra tiv e ca p acity a n d a ls o d e s p ite th e fact th a t h e r ow n s u bord in a te m agis tra te w a s n ot on ly a w itn e s s bu t a ls o th e in v e s tiga tor in th e m a tte r – Allega tion s of a re as on a ble s u s p icion or a ppre h e n s ion of b ia s on th e Pre s id in g Magis tra te th e p a rt of u n refu te d – Appea l u ph e ld an d th e cas e re m itte d to th e tria l cou rt to be trie d d e n ovo before a d ifferen t Magis tra te w h o is n ot a tta ch e d to a n y office u n d e r th e ju ris d iction of th e firs t re s pon d en t or th e Ch ief Magis tra te in th e North e rn Re gion . J UDGME NT R AMODIBE DI P [1 ] Th e cir cu m s ta n ces givin g r is e to t h is a p p ea l a r e s om ewh a t of a b iza r r e n a t u r e a s will b ecom e a p p a r en t s h or tly. Th e b ed r ock of t h e a p p ella n t ’s ca s e , a s I u n d er s t a n d it , is t h a t s h e h a d a r ea s on a b le a p p r eh en s ion of b ia s on t h e p a r t of t h e fir s t r es p on d en t wh o p r es id ed over h er ca s e in t h e cou r t of fir s t in s t a n ce a t Mok h otlon g Ma gis tr a te’s Cou r t . Th is wa s a cr im in a l ca s e in wh ich t h e a p p ella n t wa s ch a r ged wit h th eft of Gover n m en t m on ey a m ou n t in g to a s u m of M1 8 6 ,5 9 7 .0 0 . Th e t h eft wa s a lleged to h a ve t a k en p la ce d u r in g t h e p er iod b etween 2 0 0 6 a n d 2 0 1 0 . [2 ] On 2 8 Ap r il 2 0 1 1 , t h e fir s t r es p on d en t fou n d t h e a p p ella n t gu ilt y a s ch a r ged . S h e s en t en ced h er to 1 5 yea r s im p r is on m en t . Th er ea fter , t h e a p p ella n t lod ged a r eview a p p lica tion b y wa y of a n otice of m otion in t h e High Cou r t . S h e s ou gh t a n or d er r eviewin g, cor r ectin g a n d s et tin g a s id e t h e p r oceed in gs in qu es tion . S h e fu r t h er p r a yed t h a t t h es e p r oceed in gs s h ou ld s ta r t d e n ovo b efor e a d iffer en t m a gis tr a t e. [3 ] Wh en t h e m a t ter ca m e b efor e h er , t h e lea r n ed High Cou r t J u d ge d is m is s ed t h e a p p ella n t’s r eview a p p lica tion . S h e h eld t h e view t h a t t h e a p p ella n t s h ou ld h a ve p r oceed ed b y wa y of a p p ea l a n d n ot r eview. Th e a p p ella n t ch a llen ges t h e cor r ect n es s of t h a t d ecis ion . [4 ] Th e b a ck gr ou n d fa ct s s h ow t h a t t h e a p p ella n t , wh o wa s em p loyed a s a cler k in t h e Mok h otlon g Ma gis tr a te’s Cou r t , wa s ch a r ged wit h t h eft of t h e s u m of M1 8 6 ,5 9 7 .0 0 b elon gin g t o t h e Les ot h o Gover n m en t . As p oin t ed ou t ea r lier , t h e t h eft wa s a lleged t o h a ve t a k en p la ce d u r in g t h e p er iod b etween 2 0 0 6 a n d 2 0 1 0 . [5 ] It is a n u n u s u a l fea t u r e of t h e ca s e t h a t a t t h e tr ia l, wh ich com m en ced on 2 1 Se p t em b er 2 0 1 0 , Mr . Mota n ya n e, t h e Ma gis tr a t e for t h e d is tr ict of Mok h otlon g (h er ein a fter r efer r ed t o a s PW1 ), ga ve evid en ce a ga in s t t h e a p p ella n t in h is ca p a city a s t h e in ves tiga tor in t h e ca s e. As if t h a t u n u s u a l fea t u r e wa s n ot en ou gh t h e tr ia l p r oceed ed b efor e t h e fir s t r es p on d en t wh o is t h e Ch ief Ma gis tr a te of t h e Nor t h er n r egion a n d is a s u ch PW1 ’s a d m in is tr a tive h ea d . Fu r t h er m or e, it is com m on ca u s e t h a t t h e fir s t r es p on d en t h a d h a d p r ior k n owled ge of t h e fa cts p er t a in in g t o t h e ca s e b y vir t u e of h er p os ition a s Ch ief Ma gis tr a t e. [6 ] It is n ot d is p u ted t h a t a t t h e com m en cem en t of t h e tr ia l, t h e a p p ella n t’s cou n s el a p p lied for t h e fir s t r es p on d en t ’s r ecu s a l on t h e b a s is t h a t t h er e wa s a lik elih ood of b ia s on h er p a r t a n d t h a t s h e wou ld n ot b e a b le t o ju d ge PW1 ’s evid en ce im p a r tia lly. Th e fir s t r es p on d en t d is m is s ed t h e a p p lica tion . In fa ir n es s t o h er , h owever , it m u s t b e s ta ted t h a t s h e d id s a y t h a t s h e h a d m a d e a n a t tem p t t o fin d a n ot h er ju d icia l officer t o p r es id e in t h e m a t ter . S h e wa s , a s s h e s a id , u n s u cces s fu l d u e t o fin a n cia l con s t r a in ts . In m y view t h is is n o excu s e in a m a t ter s u ch a s t h e p r es en t . Be t h a t a s it m a y s h e t h en d ecid ed to a p p ea l t o h er own con s cien ce a n d p r oceed ed t o p r es id e in t h e m a t ter . Bu t s h e wen t fu r t h er , a s a p p ea r s fr om t h e a p p ella n t’s u n con t es ted a ver m en t con ta in ed in p a r a gr a p h 7 of h er fou n d in g a ffid a vit. S h e s ta ted t h a t s h e h eld PW1 “in h igh es te e m a n d s h e [res pecte d ] h is ju d gm e n t a n d a u th ority .” Th a t, a s it s eem s t o m e , wa s a n u n for t u n a te s t a tem en t. It m igh t lea d to a r ea s on a b le s u s p icion or a p p r eh en s ion of b ia s on t h e p a r t of t h e fir s t r es p on d en t . As m a t ter s s t a n d t h is is p r ecis ely t h e a p p ella n t’s ca s e. [8 ] It is well s ettled in t h is ju r is d iction t h a t t h e tes t for r ecu s a l is t h e exis t en ce of a r ea s on a b le s u s p icion or a p p r eh en s ion of b ia s . It s h a ll s u ffice m er ely t o r efer t o t h e la tes t d ecis ion of t h is Cou r t in R v Ma n y e li 2 0 0 7 – 2 0 0 8 LAC 3 7 7 . Th a t ca s e followed wit h a p p r ova l t h e ca s e of S v R o be r t s 1 9 9 9 (4 ) SA 9 1 5 (S CA) a t 9 2 4 in wh ich Howie J A (a s h e t h en wa s ) h igh ligh ted t h e followin g r equ ir em en t s of t h e t es t for r ecu s a l a t p a r a [3 2 ] of h is ju d gm en t :- “(1 ) Th ere m u s t be a s u s p icion th a t th e ju d icial office r m igh t, n ot w ou ld , be b ia s e d . (2 ) Th e s u s picion m u s t b e th a t of a re a s on able pe rs on in th e pos ition of th e accu s e d or litiga n t. (3 ) Th e s u s picion m u s t be b as e d on rea s on able grou n d s .” Th e lea r n ed J u d ge a d d ed a n im p or t a n t r id er a t p a r a [3 4 ] of t h e ju d gm en t t h a t t h e s u s p icion is on e wh ich t h e r ea s on a b le p er s on r efer r ed t o wou ld , n ot m igh t, h a ve. [9 ] Ap p lyin g t h es e p r in cip les t o t h e p r es en t ca s e I con clu d e t h a t t h e a p p ella n t’s a p p lica tion for t h e r ecu s a l of t h e fir s t r es p on d en t wa s well fou n d ed . I r es p ect fu lly a d op t t h e followin g r em a r k s of Cor b ett CJ in Co u n c il o f R e v ie w, S o u t h Afr ic a n De fe n c e F o r c e a n d Ot h e r s v Mön n ig a n d Ot h e r s 1 9 9 2 (3 ) SA 4 8 2 (A) a t 4 9 5 B-C:- “… it m e a n s th a t th e tria l … s h ou ld n eve r h av e ta k e n place a t a ll. W h a t occu rred w a s a n u llity . It w a s n ot, a s in m an y of th e cas e s qu ote d to u s , an irre gu larity or s erie s of irregu laritie s com m itte d by a n oth e rw is e com pe te n t tribu n a l. It w a s a tribu n al th a t lack e d com pe te n ce from th e s ta rt. Th e irre gu larity com m itte d by procee d in g w ith th e tria l w a s fu n d a m e n ta l a n d irre pa ra ble .” [1 0 ] It follows fr om t h e for egoin g t h a t t h e lea r n ed J u d ge a qu o m is d ir ect ed h er s elf in d is m is s in g t h e a p p ella n t’s r eview a p p lica tion on t h e gr ou n d t h a t s h e s h ou ld h a ve p r oceed ed b y wa y of a p p ea l a n d n ot r eview. Th e u n con tr over ted a llega tion s of a r ea s on a b le s u s p icion or a p p r eh en s ion of b ia s a ga in s t t h e fir s t r es p on d en t in effect r a is ed la ck of ju r is d iction on h er p a r t t o s it. [1 1 ] In t h e r es u lt t h e a p p ea l is u p h eld a n d t h e followin g or d er is m a d e:- (1 ) Th e or d er of t h e cou r t a qu o d is m is s in g t h e a p p ella n t’s a p p lica tion for r eview is s et a s id e. (2 ) Th e m a t ter is r em it ted t o t h e Mok h otlon g Ma gis tr a te’s Cou r t t o s ta r t d e n ovo b efor e a d iffer en t Ma gis tr a te wh o is n ot a t ta ch ed to a n y office u n d er t h e ju r is d iction of t h e fir s t r es p on d en t or t h e Ch ief Ma gis tr a te in t h e Nor t h er n Region . ____________________________ M. M. R AMODIBE DI PR E SIDE NT OF THE COUR T OF AP PE AL I a gr ee: _________________________ J . W. S MALBE R GE R J US TICE OF AP PE AL I a gr ee: _________________________ C. T. H OWIE J US TICE OF AP PE AL F o r t h e Ap p e lla n t : Mr . K. J . Nt h on t h o F o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t s : Ad v. M. G. Th a b a n e