CoA upholds conviction, sentence in stock theft case
Innocent Selatlhwa | Tuesday September 12, 2023 06:00
Lebasa was sentenced to a total of 10 years in prison, with five-year sentences for each of the two counts ordered to run consecutively.
It was alleged that Lebasa and another not before the court had some time between 2015 and 2016 at Majweng and Letlhakane cattle posts in the Central Administrative District stole a tshunyana cow branded A3 over R2 and earmarked 'Sekei' twice on the right, 'Lesifi' on the right ear, and 'Tlhako ya Phala' on the left ear and its tshunyana calf not branded nor earmarked, a thokwana cow earmarked 'Sekei' twice on the right ear and 'lephaga' on the left ear and branded A3 over R2 belonging to Sonny Masendu valued at P7,500.
It was also alleged that Lebasa and another not before the court at the above-mentioned cattle posts stole a kotswana cow branded A9 over EJ and earmarked 'Sekei' four times on the right ear and a tshweu ox brand marked 'XKW' and earmarked 'Sekei' on the right ear valued at P7,000 belonging to Kesegofetse Raletamo and Thatayaone Seloka, respectively. Lebasa's appeal against his conviction and sentence at the High Court had been unsuccessful, leading to his application for leave to appeal at the CoA. Justice Tau, in delivering the ruling, said that for an application for leave to appeal to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate reasonable prospects of success.
Lebasa's grounds for seeking leave to appeal included claims that the trial court had convicted him based on evidence that had been manipulated to secure a conviction, that the presiding judge had failed to properly assess and evaluate the evidence presented, and that the judge had drawn incorrect conclusions from the evidence. However, Justice Tau found that the evidence presented during the trial had been substantial and convincing. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimonies of witnesses who had identified the stolen cattle with tampered brand marks and earmarks. Additionally, Lebasa's brand mark was found on some of the stolen cattle.
The ruling noted that the complainants' testimony and photographic evidence strongly indicated that the brand mark on Lebasa's cattle was new and had been superimposed on the stolen livestock. Furthermore, Lebasa had reportedly pleaded for reconciliation with one of the victims, promising to compensate him with two heifers. Justice Tau concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and dismissed Lebasa's application.