Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1996] LSHC 115 (2 December 1996)

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1996] LSHC 115 (2 December 1996)

The conviction was upheld because the evidence that the bags contained dagga was not seriously challenged, and the police officer's identification was sufficient. The appellants failed to discharge the onus to prove they were not dealing. The delay in hearing the appeal did not justify overturning the conviction, but the interests of justice warranted suspension of the sentences.

Citation
[1996] LSHC 115
Parties
1st Appellant: Daniel Sakoane; 2nd Appellant: Ts'epo Masoabi; Respondent: Crown
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 December 1996
Case Number
CIV/T 598 of 95
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentences confirmed but suspended for 3 years on condition of no further offence under the Dangerous Medicines Act.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Medicines, Dealing in Prohibited Substances, Appeal Procedure, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Dangerous Medicines Dealing in Prohibited Substances Appeal Procedure Standard of Proof

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Sakoane

1st Appellant

Ts'epo Masoabi

2nd Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were properly convicted of dealing in dagga under section 3(a) of Act No.21 of 1973
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its assessment of evidence regarding possession and knowledge of dagga
  3. 3 Whether the delay in hearing the appeal affected the interests of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was upheld because the evidence that the bags contained dagga was not seriously challenged, and the police officer's identification was sufficient. The appellants failed to discharge the onus to prove they were not dealing. The delay in hearing the appeal did not justify overturning the conviction, but the interests of justice warranted suspension of the sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentences confirmed but suspended for 3 years on condition of no further offence under the Dangerous Medicines Act.

Orders

  • Conviction confirmed.
  • Sentences imposed on appellants suspended for 3 years on condition of no conviction under the Dangerous Medicines Act during suspension period.