Borotho v R (CRI/A 84 of 89) [1989] LSCA 128 (6 November 1989)

Borotho v R (CRI/A 84 of 89) [1989] LSCA 128 (6 November 1989)

The conviction and sentence were set aside because the charge sheet was wrongly framed, the magistrate exceeded statutory sentencing powers, and there was confusion regarding the vehicle in question. The magistrate was not functus officio in delivering reasons for judgment after conviction but before appeal was noted.

Citation
[1989] LSCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Mathibela Borotho; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
6 November 1989
Case Number
CRI/A 84 of 89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside
Legal Topics
Framing of Charges, Sentencing Powers, Appeal Procedure, Irregularity in Judgment
Source Language
English

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathibela Borotho

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the charge sheet was properly framed as alternative counts instead of separate counts
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in delivering a blanket judgment without specifying the count of conviction
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed exceeded statutory limits

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction and sentence were set aside because the charge sheet was wrongly framed, the magistrate exceeded statutory sentencing powers, and there was confusion regarding the vehicle in question. The magistrate was not functus officio in delivering reasons for judgment after conviction but before appeal was noted.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside

Orders

  • Disposal of the vehicle to be treated under section 53 of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act