Rex v Maqekoane (CRI/T/0008/2020) [2022] LSHC 19 (8 April 2022)

Rex v Maqekoane (CRI/T/0008/2020) [2022] LSHC 19 (8 April 2022)

Circumstantial and ballistic evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused were present and participated in the attempted robbery and murder at Ha Tsolo. The bullet extracted from A1 matched the shop owner's firearm, and the .45 firearm found with A2 matched shells at the scene. The accused's alibi and denials were found to be false and not reasonably possibly true. The doctrine of common purpose applied, imputing liability for murder and attempted robbery to both accused. Extenuating circumstances existed due to youth and absence of direct intent, justifying a sentence less than the maximum.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 19
Parties
Prosecution: Rex (Crown); Accused No.1: Khafa Maqekoane; Accused No.2: Lebohang Tlhakanelo Matsinyane
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
8 April 2022
Case Number
CRI/T/0008/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
guilty
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Robbery, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Doctrine of Common Purpose, Circumstantial Evidence, Alibi Defence, Extenuating Circumstances, Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Robbery Unlawful Possession of Firearm Doctrine of Common Purpose Circumstantial Evidence Alibi Defence Extenuating Circumstances +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecution

Khafa Maqekoane

Accused No.1

Lebohang Tlhakanelo Matsinyane

Accused No.2

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were the perpetrators of murder, attempted robbery, and unlawful possession of firearm at Ha Tsolo on 19/02/2018
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence and ballistic analysis sufficiently connect the accused to the offences
  3. 3 Whether the defence of alibi and lack of jurisdiction raised by the accused is reasonably possibly true

Ratio Decidendi

Circumstantial and ballistic evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused were present and participated in the attempted robbery and murder at Ha Tsolo. The bullet extracted from A1 matched the shop owner's firearm, and the .45 firearm found with A2 matched shells at the scene. The accused's alibi and denials were found to be false and not reasonably possibly true. The doctrine of common purpose applied, imputing liability for murder and attempted robbery to both accused. Extenuating circumstances existed due to youth and absence of direct intent, justifying a sentence less than the maximum.

Court Disposition

guilty

Orders

  • Accused No.1: Count I (murder) - 18 years imprisonment; Count II (attempted robbery) - 5 years imprisonment; Count III (unlawful possession of firearm) - 2 years imprisonment. Counts II and III to run concurrently with Count I. Effective sentence: 18 years imprisonment from date of custody.
  • Accused No.2: Count I (murder) - 18 years imprisonment; Count II (attempted robbery) - 5 years imprisonment. Count II to run concurrently with Count I. Effective sentence: 18 years imprisonment from date of custody.