R v Nyelimane (CRI/A 3 of 94) [1994] LSCA 142 (16 August 1994)

C R I / A / 3 / 94 IN THE HIGH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the m a t t er between MAOBA J O N A SE N Y E L I M A NE A p p e l l a nt and R E X R e s p o n d e nt J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le Mr. Justice T. M o n a p a t hi on the 16th day of A u g u s t, 1994 This a p p e al has no merit w h a t s o e v e r. Appellant admitted guilt b e f o re the magistrate of Leribe in terms of Section 2 4 0 ( 1) (b) Criminal Procedure and e v i d e n ce Act 1 9 8 1. The m a g i s t r a te returned a verdict as he was empowered to do. The m i n i m um sentence l e g i s l a t i on being then a p p l i c a b le the appellant was sentenced to five years i m p r i s o n m e n t. There had been a quarrel the previous day or two in which a friend of the appellant and the c o m p l a i n a nt were i n v o l v e d. This was followed by a fight at a beer hall in which the c o m p l a i n a nt and two friends of appellant were engaged facing the c o m p l a i n a n t. The record of p r o c e e d i n gs g o e s: "Then the two a t t a c k ed and he r e t a l i a t e d, but he f e lt s o m e t h i ng s t a b b i ng h i m, w h en he t u r n ed he f o u nd t h at it w as the a c c u s ed and he h it w i th h is f i s t s, but d ue to i n j u r i es he had s u s t a i n ed he felt p o w e r l e ss and c o l l a p s ed and fell u n c o n s c i o u s ." -2- T he a c c u s ed w as r e p r e s e n t ed by the l a te A t t o r n ey M r. M p h u t l a ne as the r e c o rd a m p ly s h o w s. T h e re d o es not a p p e ar to h a ve b e en a s t a ge w h e re the m a g i s t r a te a s k ed t he a t t o r n ey for the a p p e l l a nt w h e t h er the p l ea and the a c c e p t a n ce of the o u t l i n ed f a c ts w as in a c c o r d a n ce w i th h is ( A t t o r n e y ' s) i n s t r u c t i o n s. If the i n s t r u c t i o ns w e re not in a c c o r d a n ce w i th h is i n s t r u c t i o n s, t he l e a r n ed A t t o r n ey s h o u ld h a ve s t o od up to i n f o rm the c o u r t. T h is he did n ot d o. I do n ot a c c o rd a ny w e i g ht to any g r o u nd or o b j e c t i on f o u n d ed on t h is a s p e c t. T he f a i l u re to o b j e ct m ay h a ve b e en r e m i s s n e ss on the p a rt of the a t t o r n ey but it c a n n ot a f f e ct t he p r o c e e d i n g s. T he c o n t e n t i on that the a p p e l l a nt w h en he a d m i t t ed g u i lt w as d o i ng an i r r e g u l ar t h i ng by r e a s on of t he fact t h at the p l ea w as c o n t r a ry to h is i n s t r u c t i on to h is C o u n s e l, I r e j e ct as n o n s e n se and a t r i c k. T he e v i d e n ce p o i n ts o ut to the a t t a ck by the a p p e l l a nt h a v i ng b e en u n p r o v o k ed and t he c o m p l a i n a nt h a v i ng b e en f a c i ng the o t h er w a y. T he s t ab w as on t he b a c k. T h e re w as no d a n g er p o s ed to the a p p e l l a n t. He c o u ld h a ve s a f e ly r un a w ay and a v o i d ed any a t t a ck by the c o m p l a i n a n t, I w as m o st u n i m p r e s s ed by the g r o u nd -3- of a p p e al w a n t i ng to s u g g e st that the c o m p l a i n a nt acted in s e l f- d e f e n c e. I w o u ld r e m a rk that n o t h i ng by way of self d e f e n ce is raised nor r e c o r d ed by the m a g i s t r a t e. I w o u ld find no r e a s on why the m a g i s t r a te n e g l e c t ed to r e c o rd a n y t h i ng t o u c h i ng on self d e f e n c e. T h e re was no r e a s on why he had to p i ck and c h o o s e. I do not b e l i e ve the A p p e l l a n t. N o t h i ng p e r s u a d es me that there has been any query or o b j e c t i on to the w ay the m a g i s t r a te p r o c e e d ed a b o ut the m a t t er u n t il she r e t u r n ed the v e r d i c t. If t h e re w as a n y t h i ng a l l e g i ng u t t er r e m i s s n e ss o ne w o u ld h a ve e x p e c t ed an a p p l i c a t i on for r e v i ew or an a f f i d a v it r e f l e c t i ng the c o n t e nt or n a t u re of any s t a t e m e nt a l l e g e d ly left out of the r e c o rd or on any r e v i e w a b le g r o u n d. I am s a t i s f i ed that the c h a r ge was e x p l a i n ed to the a c c u s ed and he u n d e r s t o od the c h a r g e. T he o u t l i ne of the facts w as m a de in the p r e s e n ce of both the a p p e l l a nt and his c o u n s e l. I r e j e ct the c o n t e n t i on that t h e re w as any s t a t e m e nt to do w i th self d e f e n ce that came out of the m o u th of the a p p e l l a nt but w as not r e c o r d ed by the m a g i s t r a t e. The a p p e l l a nt was c h a r g ed w i th a s s a u lt w i th i n t e n t i on to c a u se g r i e v o us b o d i ly h a r m. T he o f f e n ce c o n s i st in the i n t e n t. I r e f u se to a c c e pt that and a v e r d i ct of c o m m on a s s a u lt o u g ht to h a ve been r e t u r n e d. In this c h a r ge it is not e v en n e c e s s a ry to h a ve c a u s ed g r i e v o us b o d i ly h a r m, (in f a c t) (see R v Z o n di 1 9 30 TPD 1 0 7, R v R a d e be 195 ( 2) 2 PH 2 6 1 ). I would say these a re the -4- facts to be considered : (a) Nature of the w e a p on u s e d; (b) degree of force u s e d; (c) the s i t u a t i on of the body w h e re the injury inflicted and the injury sustained by the c o m p l a i n a n t. It has been proved as a fact t h a t: (a) the injury was at the upper part of the body " m u l t i p le stab w o u n d s; (b) a s h a r p / l e t h al i n s t r u m e nt w as used; (c) the force used was c o n s i d e r a b l e; (d) d i s a b i l i ty was said to be m o d e r a t e; (e) c o m p l a i n a nt was h o s p i t a l i z ed for half a m o n t h. I have no h e s i t a t i on in d i s m i s s i ng the a p p e a l. T he appellant is to serve his s e n t e n ce of five years and h is bail is c a n c e l l e d, He is not b e f o re this C o u r t. A w a r r a nt is to be issued for h is a p p r e h e n s i on in order for him to serve h is s e n t e n c e. T. MONAPATHI JUDGE 16th August, 1994 For the Appellant : No Appearance For the Respondents: Mr. Sakoane