R v Matsela and Another (CRI/A 80 of 94) [1994] LSCA 57 (17 March 1994)
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the outline of facts did not disclose the offence of theft or any competent verdict, and the prosecution failed to state all necessary ingredients of the offence, prejudicing the appellants.
- Citation
- [1994] LSCA 57
- Parties
- Appellant: Lits'itso Matsela; Appellant: Mpakapaka Nts'ekhe; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Judgment Date
- 17 March 1994
- Case Number
- CRI/A 80 of 94
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Plea of Guilty, Legal Representation, Sufficiency of Facts, Conviction and Sentence
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lits'itso Matsela
Appellant
Mpakapaka Nts'ekhe
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the outline of facts disclosed the offence of theft or any competent verdict
- 2 Whether the appellants were properly convicted on their plea of guilty
- 3 Whether the appellants' rights to legal representation were adequately addressed
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the outline of facts did not disclose the offence of theft or any competent verdict, and the prosecution failed to state all necessary ingredients of the offence, prejudicing the appellants.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted
Orders
- Appellants acquitted
- Appeal deposits to be refunded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment