[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Botswana: Court of Appeal

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> Botswana: Court of Appeal >> 1986 >> [1986] BWCA 20

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Help]

Ketlaareng v The State (Court of Appeal No. 43 of 1986 ) [1986] BWCA 20 (3 December 1986)

.PDF of original document

.RTF of original document

2
He appeals against both conviction and sentence.
It is not in dispute that the ten head of cattle were stolen.
The state case was that Appellant sold the ten head of cattle to Raditse Galubane (PW4) for P500 and was paid in three instalments. PW4 gave evidence to this effect and also that Appellant when the police came making inquries into a report of stolen cattle said in the presence of the
police that he had sold PW4 head of cattle which were not stolen but came from his kraal.
A witness Setshaba Gaotshabelwa. PW5 gave evidence that he was present when the sale was arranged between Accused and PW4 .
Aiot ler witness Joseph Mokgethe, PW6, gave evidence that Accused had come to him, enquiring into the whereabouts of PW4 and saying he had come to collect money from PW4 for the sale of cattle. He left a message with PW6 to tell PW4 the Appellant had been looking for him. Later on he saw Appellant and PW4 together and saw a paper being written and saw money being paid to Appellant.
Tlotlen Kgetse (PW7) a sergeant of police gave evidence
that following a report of stolen cattle he had come to
PW4 and to Appellant and that in the presence of PW4
said in the presence of Appellant that he had bought
cattle from Appellant and the latter agreed.
³/      

3
In the course of his evidence PW4 had produced a piece of paper which h ; said had been signed by himself and Appellant objecting to the admission of the paper in evidence and for some obscure reason the learned magistrate excluded it.
Appellant gave evidence. He denied stealing the cattle and denied selling them to PW4. He said that he had given PW4 P528 to buy him a c^r.
The learned magistrate reviewed the evidence. He believed the prosecution witnesses and disbelieved Appellant. It is not entirely clear whether the magistrate had seen the contents of the paper. In his judgment however, the learned magistrate ax one point for disbelieving Appellant said
"I also believe that PW4 made Accused to sign that piece of paper in his office in the presence of PW6 to serve as evidence of the sale and parting of money to the Accused. PW4 appeared to me to be a man of substance who owned a business and can part with P500 to the Accused. Accused on the other hand did not strike me as having any property at all. I do not therefore believe the story of the Accused that the amount stated in the paper represented money which he rather paid to PW4 to enable him to buy a car for the ludicrous sum of P500 or so".
There had been further references in the cross-
I examination PW4 and the evidence of PW6 to a piece of
paper, but I am prepared to accept that it was an irregularity
4/

A
to use the contents of the paper which had been originally excluded in evidence, as part of the test of the credibility of the Appellant. This was an irregularity.
I am however, satisfied that the evidence as a whole was ovewhelmingly against the Appellant and that the learned magistrate, without relying on this passage, must have convicted.

I agree:         L. De Van Winsen
JUDGE OF APPEAL

I agree:
G. Bizos
JUDGE OF APPEAL

LOBATSE 3.12.86