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.
Parties
Mathibela Borotho
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the charge sheet was properly framed as alternative counts instead of separate counts
- 2 Whether the magistrate erred in delivering a blanket judgment without specifying the count of conviction
- 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
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