Linoko v R (CRI/A 3 of 90) [1991] LSCA 164 (19 December 1991)

CRI/A/3/90 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the m a t t er b e t w e e n: MATLI L I N O KO V REX B e f o re the H o n o u r a b le Chief J u s t i ce M r. J u s t i ce B . P. C u l l i n an on the 19th day of D e c e m b e r, 1 9 9 1. For the A p p e l l a nt : For the R e s p o n d e nt : M r. T. M o n a p h a t hi M r. S. S a k o a n e, S e n i or Crown Counsel J U D G M E NT The a p p e l l a nt was convicted by the S u b o r d i n a te Court for M a s e ru of assault with intent to do g r i e v o us bodily harm and was s e n t e n c ed to 5 y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e n t. The c o m p l a i n a nt w as deaf and d u m b. The learned A t t o r n ey for the a p p e l l a n t, M r. M o n a p h a t h i, points to the fact that the Crown did not p u r s ue the a d d u c i ng of the c o m p l a i n a n t 's e v i d e n ce by m e a ns of an i n t e r p r e t er familiar with sign l a n g u a g e. It may be however that the c o m p l a i n a nt could not c o m m u n i c a te by such m e a n s. The learned Senior Crown Counsel M r. S a k o a ne s u b m i ts that the p r o p o s i t i on that the a b s e n ce of a c o m p l a i n a nt w e a k e ns a p r o s e c u t i on case of a s s a u l t, is not a valid p r o p o s i t i o n: that is a p p a r e n t, he s u b m i t s, when one a p p l i es the u n d e r l y i ng p r i n c i p le to a case of m u r d e r. I r e s p e c t f u l ly a g r e e. /... It s e e ms t h at t he l e a r n ed t r i al M a g i s t r a te d id n ot a c c e pt t he a p p e l l a n t 's e n t i re e v i d e n c e, b ut g a ve no r e a s o ns f or r e j e c t i ng it a nd in a ny e v e nt d id n ot a p p ly t he t e st of w h e t h er or n ot t he a p p e l l a n t 's e v i d e n ce m i g ht r e a s o n a b ly p o s s i b ly be t r ue . -2- A p p l y i ng t h at t e s t, it w as t he a p p e l l a n t 's e v i d e n ce that, he h e a rd t he n o i se of p i gs s q u e a l i ng at n i g h t, in h is p ig s t y. On i n v e s t i g a t i on he f o u nd t h r ee p e r s o ns t h e r e, in t he p r o c e ss of s t e a l i ng h is p i g s, s o me of w h o se f e et w e re b o u nd w i th w i r e. T he c o m p l a i n a nt i n d e ed d r o p p ed a p i g. Be a nd t he o t h er t h i e v es h u r l ed s t o n es at t he a p p e l l a n t, t he c o m p l a i n a nt h i t t i ng h im in t he c h e st w i th a s t o n e. T he o t h er t wo f l e d. He a p p r o a c h ed t he c o m p l a i n a nt a nd s t r u ck h im s o me f i ve t i m es on t he h e a d, w i th a s t i c k, t he l a t t er f a l l i ng to t he g r o u n d. T h e r e a f t er he a nd a n o t h er c a r r i ed t he c o m p l a i n a nt to h is ( t he a p p e l l a n t ' s) h o u s e. He t h en s e nt a m e s s a ge to t he C h i ef to t he e f f e ct t h at he h ad a r r e s t ed a t h i e f. T he c o m p l a i n a nt w as s u b s e q u e n t ly h o s p i t a l i s ed f or a f ew d a y s, m e d i c al e x a m i n a t i on r e v e a l i ng a h a e m a t o ma or s w e l l i ng on b o th w r i s t s, i n d i c a t i n g, it s e e m s, t h at t he c o m p l a i n a n t 's w r i s ts w e re at s o me s t a ge t i e d. T he e x a m i n i ng d o c t or f o u nd s o me f o ur s u p e r f i c i al l a c e r a t i o ns on t he h e a d, w i th h a e m a t o ma in b o th e y e l i d s, w i th b l e e d i ng f r om t he n o s t r i l s. T he d o c t or r e g a r d ed t he i n j u r i es as ' m o d e r a t e '. /....... -3- T h e re w as e v i d e n ce t h at t he a p p e l l a nt c o n t i n u ed to b e l a b o ur t he c o m p l a i n a nt w i th an i r on b a r, a ll o v er t he b o d y, as he l ay p r o s t r a te on t he g r o u n d. T h at e v i d e n c e, w h i ch w as d e n i ed by t he a p p e l l a n t, s i m p ly c a n n ot be t r u e, in t he l i g ht of t he m e d i c al e v i d e n c e, a nd t he a p p e l l a n t 's e v i d e n ce of a s s a u lt m u st be a c c e p t ed . T a k i ng t he a p p e l l a n t 's e v i d e n c e, h o w e v e r, it c a n n ot be s a id t h at he w as a c t i ng in d e f e n ce of p r o p e r t y: t wo of t he t h i e v es h ad f l ed a nd t he c o m p l a i n a nt h ad d r o p p ed t he p ig he c a r r i e d. S e c o n d l y, a s s u m i ng t h at it w as r e a s o n a b le f or t he a p p e l l a nt n ot to h a ve f l ed t he s c e n e, in c a se of f u r t h er a s s a u lt w i th s t o n e s, I c a n n ot s ee t h at he t h e r e a f t er a c t ed in r e a s o n a b le s e lf d e f e n c e. I c a n n ot s ee t h at it c o u ld be s a id t h at it w as n e c e s s a ry to s t r i ke t he c o m p l a i n a nt f i ve t i m es on t he h e ad w i th a s t i c k, to t he e x t e nt i n d e ed t h at t he c o m p l a i n a n t, w as h i m s e lf u n a b le to f l ee a nd w as d i s a b l e d. T h e re is t he a s p e ct h o w e v er t h at t he a p p e l l a nt a c t ed in t he a r r e st of a t h i e f, as he w as e n t i t l ed to d o, u n d er s e c t i o ns 2 7, 29 a nd 30 of t he C r i m i n al P r o c e d u re & E v i d e n c e. T he t wo o t h er t h i e v es h ad f l e d, a nd it s e e ms to me t h at t he a p p e l l a nt w o u ld be e n t i t l ed to u se s u ch f o r ce as w as r e a s o n a b ly n e c e s s a ry in o r d er to p r e v e nt f l i g ht by t he c o m p l a i n a n t. T h at is an a s p e ct w h i ch t he l e a r n ed t r i al M a g i s t r a te d id n ot i n v e s t i g a t e. T he q u e s t i on t h en a r i s es w h e t h er it w as n e c e s s a ry /....... -4- to d i s a b le t he c o m p l a i n a nt in o r d er to a r r e st h i m. It h as b e en s a id so m a ny t i m es t h at a C o u rt c a n n ot p l a ce i t s e lf in t he p o s i t i on of an a rm c h a ir c r i t ic in s u ch m a t t e r s. O ne m u st b e ar in m i nd t h at t he a p p e l l a nt a c t ed in t he d a rk of n i g h t, d i s t u r b ed u p on f i n d i ng t h i e v es in h is p ig s t y. In a ll t he c i r c u r n s t a n c es I am n ot s a t i s f i ed t h at h ad t he l e a r n ed t r i al M a g i s t r a te c o n s i d e r ed t h e se a s p e c ts t h at he w o u ld i n e v i t a b ly h a ve f o u nd t h at the appellant used excessive force. It w o u ld be u n s a fe to a l l ow t he c o n v i c t i on to s t a nd t h e r e f o r e. In p a s s i ng I o b s e r ve t h at t he l e a r n ed t r i al M a g i s t r a te c o n s i d e r ed h i m s e lf b o u nd by t he t e r ms of t he R e v i s i on of P e n a l t i es ( A m e n d m e n t) O r d er 1 9 88 a nd i m p o s ed a s e n t e n ce of f i ve y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e n t. T he t r a n s a c t i on t o ok p l a ce on 2 3 rd A p r i l, 1 9 8 8, h o w e v e r, t h at i s, b e f o re t he a d v e nt of t he O r d er on 1 4 th J u l y, 1 9 8 8. U n d er t he t e r ms of s e c t i on of t he I n t e r p r e t a t i on A ct 1 9 77 t h e r e f o re t he O r d er d id n ot a p p l y, so t h at t he l e a r n ed t r i al M a g i s t r a te h ad a d i s c r e t i on in t he m a t t er of s e n t e n ce . In a ny e v e n t, t he a p p e al is a l l o w e d. T he f i n d i ng a nd s e n t e n ce in t he C o u rt b e l ow a re s e t' a s i de a nd t he a p p e l l a nt is a c q u i t t e d. D e l i v e r ed at M a s e ru t h is 1 9 th D ay of D e c e m b e r, B . P. C H I EF 1 9 9 1. C U L L E N AN J U S T I CE -1- CIV/T/149/91 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter of: TEK APPLIANCES (PTY) LTD Plaintiff vs DAVID NTLHASINYE Respondent Before the Honourable Chief Justice Mr Justice B. P. Cullinan on the 16th day of December 1991 For the Plaintiff : Mr. T. Mahlakeng For the Defendant : Mr. S. Phafane JUDGMENT Cases referred to: (1) Von & Manufacturers Ltd (1962) 35A 399; Siegler Anor v Superior Furniture (2) Steel metals Ltd v Truck and Farm Equipt Ltd and Anor (1961)2 SA 372; (3) Dickinson v South African General Electric Co. (Pty) Ltd (1973) 2 SA 620 (A); -2- (4) Plaacon Evans Points (Tvl) Ltd v Ming and Another (1980) 3 SA 378. This is an application for provisional sentence. The defendant is a director of Modern Kitchen and Cupboards (Pty) Ltd. On 11th September, 1990 he signed a cheque made out to the plaintiff company in the amount of M17.766.00. The cheque was dishonoured. The defendant deposes that he signed the cheque on behalf of the former company. There is nothing on the face of the cheque to indicate that such is the case, I have considered a number of authorities, in particular that of Von Siegler & Anor_v Superior Furniture Manufacturers Ltd (1) per Trollip J, There is no doubt that on all the authorities the defendant is prima facie liable on the cheque, that is, ex facie the cheque. There is however the question of rectification. The defendant, by inference, raises such defence in paragraphs 5 and 8 of his affidavit. There are two points in his favour. He deposes that the account number on the cheque is that of the company and not his. There is no evidence indeed that the defendant had an account at the particular bank or branch thereof see Steelmetal's Ltd v Truck and Farm Equipt Ltd and Anor (2) at p. 375 at F per Trollip J.