Keketsi Ntholeng & Others v Rex (C of A (CRI) 4 of 2014) [2016] LSCA 21 (29 April 2016)

Keketsi Ntholeng & Others v Rex (C of A (CRI) 4 of 2014) [2016] LSCA 21 (29 April 2016)

The appellants were properly convicted of murder on the basis of common purpose and dolus eventualis. The evidence established that all appellants actively participated in the assault that caused the deceased's death. The trial court did not commit any irregularity in sentencing, as the absence of mitigation was due to defence counsel's choice, and the court considered extenuating factors.

Citation
[2016] LSCA 21
Parties
Appellant: Ntholeng Keketsi; Appellant: Mabina Mabina; Appellant: Kelebone Mokone; Appellant: Motseki Sutha; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 4 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Purpose, Dolus Eventualis, Circumstantial Evidence, Sentencing, Mitigation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Murder Common Purpose Dolus Eventualis Circumstantial Evidence Sentencing Mitigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntholeng Keketsi

Appellant

Mabina Mabina

Appellant

Kelebone Mokone

Appellant

Motseki Sutha

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants acted with common purpose in the murder of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established the cause of death and linked it to the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in convicting on the basis of circumstantial evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were properly convicted of murder on the basis of common purpose and dolus eventualis. The evidence established that all appellants actively participated in the assault that caused the deceased's death. The trial court did not commit any irregularity in sentencing, as the absence of mitigation was due to defence counsel's choice, and the court considered extenuating factors.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.