Pholosa v Officer Commanding Butha Buthe and Others (CIV/APN 349 of 98) [2000] LSCA 90 (12 May 2000)

1 C I V / A P N / 3 4 9 / 98 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the matter b e t w e e n: N T H E B E RE P H O L O SA A P P L I C A NT and O F F I C ER C O M M A N D I NG B U T HA B U T HE 2ND P U B L IC P R O S E C U T OR T HE A T T O R N EY G E N E R AL 3RD 1ST R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT R E S P O N D E NT J U D G M E NT F or the Applicant : M r. Teele F or the Respondents : M r. M a p e t la D e l i v e r ed by t he H o n o u r a b le Mr Justice T. M o n a p a t hi on t he 12th d ay of M ay 2 0 00 Applicant's vehicle h ad b e en detained since J u ne 1998. Consequently this application w as filed on the 2nd S e p t e m b er 1998 a nd later served on the First R e s p o n d e nt on the 10th S e p t e m b er 1 9 9 8. No c h a r ge h ad b e en preferred against this A p p l i c a nt h e n ce his claiming that the vehicle w o u ld deteriorate a nd that its detention w as no longer purposeful. T he A p p l i c a nt m ay h a ve possessed the vehicle in question unlawfully a nd the d o c u m e n t a t i on thereof could be d u b i o us as it is m o st of the times, thus inclining police, for g o od reason, to strongly suspect that an applicant's possession w as unlawful. E v en in e x t r e me cases of that kind I h a ve c o n c l u d ed that there w as no o n us on applicant to p r o ve that his possession w as lawful. It is b e c a u se e v en if it w as not so it w o u ld n ot be the a n s w er to an indefinite detention of a suspect's vehicle without a c h a r ge b e i ng preferred. I n d e ed e v en if the C r o wn w as able to p e r s u a de the C o u rt that the possession w as unlawful (which attempts are often d o ne half- heartedly) the question w o u ld still revolve a r o u nd the R e s p o n d e n t 's inability to prosecute (as at present) a nd thus rendering the intention to h a ve the vehicle as an exhibit u n c o n v i n c i n g. O n ce no c h a r ge w as being preferred against A p p l i c a nt in this case since J u ne 1 9 9 8, a case w as m a de as a result that the effect of the detention w as to m a ke the vehicle deteriorate a nd that the detention w as obviously n ot b e i ng purposeful a nd therefore n ot g o o d. T he C o u rt ordered that the vehicle be released to the A p p l i c a nt a nd costs of the application be paid to the Applicant. T h i n gs c o n n e c t ed with theft of vehicles a p p e ar to require regulation by a special A ct of Parliament. T M O N A P A T HI J U D GE 12th M ay 2000