Phoofolo v R (C of A (CRI) 1 of 1988) [1990] LSCA 19 (23 January 1990)

Phoofolo v R (C of A (CRI) 1 of 1988) [1990] LSCA 19 (23 January 1990)

The appeal was dismissed because the appointment of Mr. Van Staden was valid and severable, the statements made by the appellant were admissible, and the evidence established the appellant's guilt under the relevant statutory provisions. The acceptance of money by the appellant constituted at least the appearance of diminished impartiality, satisfying the requirements for conviction under section 19(3) of the Act.

Citation
[1990] LSCA 19
Parties
Appellant: Edward Hae Phoofolo; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 January 1990
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 1 of 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exchange Control, Statutory Interpretation, Admissibility of Evidence, Conflict of Statements, Severability, Public Officer Misconduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Banking Law Administrative Law Exchange Control Statutory Interpretation Admissibility of Evidence Conflict of Statements Severability +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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Hae Phoofolo

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted under the Exchange Control Regulations and the Central Bank of Lesotho Act
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of Mr. Van Staden under Regulation 19(1) was valid and his evidence admissible
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of severability applies to the appointment document

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appointment of Mr. Van Staden was valid and severable, the statements made by the appellant were admissible, and the evidence established the appellant's guilt under the relevant statutory provisions. The acceptance of money by the appellant constituted at least the appearance of diminished impartiality, satisfying the requirements for conviction under section 19(3) of the Act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.