Rex V Ramalefane & 2 Others (CRI/T/0017/2023) [2024] LSHC 215 (5 November 2024)

# Rex V Ramalefane & 2 Others (CRI/T/0017/2023) [2024] LSHC 215 (5 November 2024) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: Rex V Ramalefane & 2 Others \(CRI/T/0017/2023\) …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05) [ Download PDF (244.5 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (244.5 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/215/eng@2024-11-05/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Rex V Ramalefane & 2 Others (CRI/T/0017/2023) [2024] LSHC 215 (5 November 2024) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Rex V Ramalefane & 2 Others (CRI/T/0017/2023) [2024] LSHC 215 (5 November 2024) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2024] LSHC 215 Copy Hearing date 5 November 2024 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Case number CRI/T/0017/2023 Judges [Mokoko J](/judgments/all/?judges=Mokoko%20J) Judgment date 5 November 2024 Language English ##### __Collections * [Case indexes](/taxonomy/case-indexes) * [Refugees](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees) * [Criminal law](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees-criminal-law) * [Murder](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-refugees-criminal-law-murder) Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO** **Held in Maseru** **CRI/T/0017/2023** In the matter between **** **REX CROWN** And **LETLAMORENENG RAMALEFANE ACCUSED 1** **HAREENG RAMALEFANE ACCUSED 2** **MONTSO RAMALEFANE ACCUSED 3** _Neutral Citation_ : Rex vs Letlamoreneng Ramalefane & 2 Others [2024] LSHC 215 CRIM (5th November 2024) CORAM : T. J. MOKOKO J DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2024 DATE OF DELIVERY : 05/11/2024 **__SUMMARY__** _Murder- Crown withdrew charges against A3 in terms of section 278 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981- Accused persons pleaded guilty to culpable homicide- Crown accepted their plea- application of section 240 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981- Court directed crown to make a brief outline of facts- Accused persons convicted of culpable homicide- Accused persons sentenced in terms of provisions of section 314 (2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981._ **__ANNOTATIONS__** __Statutes__ 1. _Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ 2. _Penal Code[Act No.6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6)_ **JUDGMENT** **Introduction** Count I [1] Accused persons were charged with contravention of _section 40 (1) of the Penal Code[Act No. 6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6), read with section 40 (2) and 26 (1) thereof_. In that upon or about the 9th of February 2019, at or near Phamong in the district of Mohale’s Hoek, the said accused, sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful purpose, did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of Monaheng Ramalefane. Count II [2] Accused persons were charged with contravention of _section 40 (1) of the Penal Code[Act No.6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6), read with section 40 (2) and 26 (1) thereof_. In that upon or about the 9th of February 2019, at or near Phamong in the district of Mohele’s hoek, the said accused, sharing a common intention or purpose to pursue an unlawful purpose did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of ‘Masentle Ntjoko. [3] Crown withdrew charges against A3 in terms of the provisions of _section 278 (3) of theCriminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981 (Act). Section 278 (3)_ of the Act provides that: “ _Nothing in this section shall deprive the Director of Public Prosecutions or the public prosecutor with his authority or on his behalf, of the right of withdrawing any charge at any time before the accused has pleaded and framing a fresh charge for hearing before the same or any other competent court”._ [4] Accused persons pleaded guilty to culpable homicide, and the crown accepted pleas of guilty. _Section 240 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_ provides that: “ _If a person charged with any offence before any court pleads, guilty to that offence or to an offence of which he might be found guilty on that charge, and the prosecutor accepts that plea the court may-_ 1. _if it is the High Court, and the person has pleaded guilty to any offence other than murder, bring in a verdict without hearing any evidence”._ **Summary of Facts** [5] The court directed the crown counsel to outline the facts briefly. The counsel stated that on 9th February 2019, between 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm, Thabang Khutlang heard a commotion at the deceased's home, Monaheng Ramalefane. Upon rushing to the scene, he discovered the deceased involved in a confrontation with A1 and A2, while another individual, ‘Masentle Ntjoko, was lying on the floor. Thabang intervened in the altercation and tried to understand the situation. He left the scene after his intervention was unsuccessful. Around 11:00 pm, A1 and A2 went to the chief's residence, Hlomelang Tieane, and reported that they had fought with their father, the deceased. Monaheng Ramalefane was taken to the hospital, and he was pronounced dead upon arrival. The incident was reported to the police, who arrived at the crime scene. ‘Masentle Ntjoko died at the scene of the crime. **Mitigation and Aggravation of Sentence** [6] The court convicted both accused persons of culpable homicide. Crown indicated that the accused persons do not have a record of previous convictions. In the proceedings for mitigation of sentence, Advocate Thafeng, counsel for the accused, argued that the accused are first-time offenders. They found themselves in an unfortunate situation when they intervened in a fight between the two deceased individuals, who were involved in an illicit love affair. Accused 1 (A1) is married and has two minor children who rely entirely on him. He is the sole breadwinner for his family, having separated from his wife, and he is the children's primary custodian. The accused expressed remorse for their actions; they approached the family of the deceased with an offer to pay M60,000.00 for the head of the deceased, which was to be settled within a year. Additionally, the accused demonstrated their remorse by pleading guilty to culpable homicide, which helped save the court's valuable time and resources. Therefore, the counsel requested that the accused be granted a suspended sentence per _Section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_. A1 works as a teacher at a primary school. A2 works as a factory worker in the Republic of South Africa. He is married and has two minor children who depend on him. [7] During the aggravation of the sentence, Adv. Mapesela, the crown counsel, argued that the court should impose a sentence that will deter others from committing acts of violence and prevent the community from resorting to vigilante justice. She acknowledged that the accused’s proposal to raise the head of the deceased indicates their remorse for their actions. **SENTENCING** [8] Now this court has come to the final stage of this trial, which is passing the appropriate sentence that will serve the interests of justice in this matter. In passing a sentence, this court must consider the interests of the accused, the nature of the offence and the interests of society. [9] Culpable homicide is a serious offence because two lives have been lost. However, the sentence for culpable homicide should be less severe than the sentence for murder. In passing sentence in _casu_ , I have considered that the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser crime of culpable homicide. This is a sign that the accused are remorseful of their actions. I have further considered that the accused saved the court’s valuable time and scarce resources in pleading guilty. The accused persons reported the incident to the chief on the fateful night. This signifies that the accused individuals were sorry and remorseful of their actions. The accused came to court on all occasions when they were warned to do so. Their conduct signifies respect for the courts and the administration of justice. The accused persons are the first offenders. That means they are individuals who are not prone to offending against the law. They should be treated as fallen angels and must be given a second chance in life. This incident occurred in February 2019, and it has taken approximately five years for the accused individuals to know their fate in this matter. I have considered that this case has been hanging over the accused’s head for five years, which is punishment itself, as it affected them psychologically and emotionally. [10] Be that as it may, I have further considered that the deceased was a breadwinner in her family and that her death caused a void in her family. [11] This court has considered that the appropriate sentence in this matter is provided in _section 314 (2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_. It provides that: “ _Whenever a person is convicted before the High Court or any subordinate court of any offence other than an offence specified in Schedule III, the court may pass sentence, but order that the operation of the whole or any part thereof be suspended for a period not exceeding 3 years, which period of suspension, in the absence of any order to the contrary, shall be computed in accordance with sub-sections (3) and (4) respectively, and the order shall be subject to such conditions ( whether as to compensation to be made by that person for damage or pecuniary loss good conduct or otherwise) as the court may specify therein._ [12] This court has concluded that the following is an appropriate sentence that will serve the interests of justice in this matter. **ORDER** 1. Both accused persons, to wit, A1 and A2 are sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment on both Count 1 and Count II, and both sentences to run concurrently. These sentences are wholly suspended for three (3) years on the following conditions; 2. That A1 pays compensation to the deceased’s (‘Masentle Ntjoka) family in the sum of M40,000.00 (Forty Thousand Maloti) within three years with effect from 1st December 2024, in the monthly instalments of M1,112,00 (One Thousand One Hundred and twelve Maloti) per month, until the whole amount is paid in full. 3. That A2 pays compensation to the deceased’s (‘Masentle Ntjoka) family in the sum of M40,000.00 (Forty Thousand Maloti) within three years with effect from 1st December 2024, in the monthly instalments of M1,112,00 (One Thousand One Hundred and twelve Maloti) per month, until the whole amount is paid in full. 4. Both A1 and A2 are directed to make these payments at Chief Hlomelang Tieane's office in the presence of people who will witness the payments and acknowledge receipt. 5. Proof of payments should be dispatched to the office of the Registrar every six months through the office of the Police. My Assessors Agree. _______________________ T.J. MOKOKO JUDGE **FOR THE CROWN :** ADV. M. MAPESELA **FOR THE ACCUSED :** ADV. S. THAFENG #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >