R v Moseme (CRI/A 39 of 94) [1994] LSCA 17 (2 February 1994)

R v Moseme (CRI/A 39 of 94) [1994] LSCA 17 (2 February 1994)

The appellant's explanation for possession of the property was reasonably possibly true and uncontradicted. The evidence did not support the conviction, and procedural irregularities further undermined the conviction.

Citation
[1994] LSCA 17
Parties
Appellant: Moruti Moseme; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 February 1994
Case Number
CRI/A 39 of 94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; appellant acquitted
Legal Topics
Theft, Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Theft Evidence Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moruti Moseme

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant was proper given discrepancies between the charge sheet and evidence
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's explanation for possession of property was reasonably possibly true
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in the magistrate's compliance with statutory requirements affected the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's explanation for possession of the property was reasonably possibly true and uncontradicted. The evidence did not support the conviction, and procedural irregularities further undermined the conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; appellant acquitted

Orders

  • Appellant acquitted
  • Exhibits to remain in Subordinate Court Letibe for up to 60 days; if unclaimed, magistrate to dispose of as law requires