8:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

+254 722385723

Call Us For Free Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

 

Goikanya v S (CLHFT-000110-12) [2013] BWHC 54 (20 March 2013)

MMB Advocates > Uncategorized  > Goikanya v S (CLHFT-000110-12) [2013] BWHC 54 (20 March 2013)

Goikanya v S (CLHFT-000110-12) [2013] BWHC 54 (20 March 2013)




IN THE HIGH COURT
OF BOTSWANA

HELD AT
FRANCISTOWN

CLHFT-000110-12

(CMMPY-000170-11)

DATE:
20 MARCH 2013

In the matter
between:

GOIKANYA
BAIKEPI………………………………………………..APPELLANT

AND

THE
STATE…………………………………………………………..RESPONDENT

Appellant in
person Mr Chabata for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

PHUMAPHI J:

1. If there is an
appeal that is purely academic, this appeal is one, as the appellant
has already served his sentence but just
wished to have his day in
court.

2. The facts of this
case are briefly that the appellant went to one Mma Segopa’s place to
ask for cigarettes. It would appear Mma
Segopa sold cigarettes. He
found one Goitsemang who was selling cigarettes in the absence of Mma
Segopa and she told him that the
cigarettes were for sale and not for
free offer.

3. According to her
he insulted her and called her a Mosarwa among other things. Above
the insults he assaulted her with an open
hand and then kept poking
her head until Resego who gave evidence as PW2, came to find him busy
doing so. She tried to intervene
but he insulted her as well. They
called the Police who came, arrested the appellant and took him to
the Police Station. Goitsemang
and Resego went along as well.

4. He was
subsequently charged, tried and found guilty of common assault. He
was sentenced to two strokes which he has already received.

5. In his appeal he
has raised a number of contradictions which he says exist in the
prosecution case which he never cross-examined
the State witnesses
on. At the end of the prosecution case, he chose to remain silent so
that his version of events remains a mystery
to the court even today.
The court has made a decision on the basis of the prosecution
evidence alone without the defence case,
as none was foreshadowed in
the cross-examination.

6. The evidence led
by the prosecution, established a prima facie case against the
appellant and in the absence of a challenge to
the prosecution case,
the prima facie case has become proof beyond reasonable doubt, the
minor discrepancies in the prosecution
case notwithstanding.

7. In the
circumstances I come to the conclusion that the appellant was
properly convicted and dismiss the appeal as unmeritorious.

DELIVERED IN OPEN
COURT AT FRANCISTOWN

THIS 20 DAY OF
MARCH 2013.

M P PHUMAPHI
JUDGE

Appellant in
person

DPP Attorneys for
the Respondent





Source link

No Comments

Leave a Comment

https://www.mmbadvocates.com/