Attorney General and Another v Makoala (C of A (CIV) 33 of 1995) [1996] LSCA 59 (1 June 1996)
The police acted without legal justification as there was no evidence or allegation of false documents being used to register the vehicles; suspicion alone does not authorize seizure under the statute.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] LSCA 59
- Parties
- Appellant: Attorney General; Appellant: O/C Teyateyaneng Police; Respondent: Tsoloane Makoala
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- C of A (CIV) 33 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Mandament Van Spolie, Police Powers, Seizure of Property
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General
Appellant
O/C Teyateyaneng Police
Appellant
Tsoloane Makoala
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the police lawfully seized the respondent's motor vehicles under section 14(2) of the Road Traffic Act No.8 of 1981
- 2 Whether suspicion alone justifies seizure under the Act
Ratio Decidendi
The police acted without legal justification as there was no evidence or allegation of false documents being used to register the vehicles; suspicion alone does not authorize seizure under the statute.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
C. OF A. (CIV) NO.33 OF 1995 IN THE LESOTHO COURT OF APPEAL In the matter between: ATTORNEY GENERAL 1ST APPELLANT O/C TEYATEYANENG POLICE 2ND APPELLANT AND TSOLOANE MAKOALA HELP AT MASERU CORAM: BROWDE JA KOTZE' JA V. D. HEEVER AJA KOTZE, JA J U D G M E NT The respondent in this appeal applied for, and obtained, in the High Court an order against the Officer Commanding the Teyateyaneng Police (the appellant) to restore to the respondent forthwith certain three motor vehicles lawfully registered, in his name which vehicles were removed from respondent's peaceful and undisturbed possession by members of the force under the appellant's command on 25th August, 1995. The appellant now appeals to this Court against the said order. The appellant did not deny and indeed admitted that respondent was in peaceful possession of the vehicles in question at the relevant time and furthermore admitted that his possession was disturbed by the removal of the vehicles. The contention raised by the appellant was that the police had the right so to do "in terms of Section 14(2) of the Road Traffic Act No.8 of 1981." Section 14(2) confers power on a police officer to seize any motor vehicle the registration of which was obtained through the use or production of a false document. The appellant's opposing affidavit in the court a quo raises no suggestion at all that false documents were used or produced to secure registration of any of the vehicles seized on 25th August, 1995. The appellant seeks to justify the police conduct by means of the undermentioned allegation:- "We informed applicant of our suspicion and demanded from him the registration papers in respect thereof. Applicant refused to produce the papers whereupon we seized the said vehicles." Mere or even reasonable suspicion does not suffice. The actual use or production of false documentation is a pre-requisite of the power of seizure conferred by section 14(2). The police acted in a totally arbitrary and high-handed manner. The appeal is dismissed with costs. G. P. C. K O T Z E' JUDGE OF APPEAL I agree I agree J. BROWDE JUDGE OF APPEAL L. VAN DEN HEEVER ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL Delivered at Maseru on day of June, 1996.