Lebotsa v R (C OF A (CRI) N0.13/2008; CRI/T/163/2007) [2009] LSCA 11 (23 October 2009)

Lebotsa v R (C OF A (CRI) N0.13/2008; CRI/T/163/2007) [2009] LSCA 11 (23 October 2009)

The appellant's conviction for unauthorized expenditure under s.36(1) of the Finance Order, 1988 was proper as her conduct was unauthorized and in conflict with procurement regulations; the acquittal on the corruption charge was correct due to lack of evidence of intent to obtain an undue advantage; the sentence imposed was justified given aggravating circumstances and mitigatory factors.

Citation
[2009] LSCA 11
Parties
Appellant: Pontšo Lebotsa; Respondent: The Crown
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Case Number
C OF A (CRI) N0.13/2008 ; CRI/T/163/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
Legal Topics
Unauthorized Expenditure, Corruption, Statutory Interpretation, Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Public Finance Law Unauthorized Expenditure Corruption Statutory Interpretation Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pontšo Lebotsa

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alternative charge under s.36(1) of the Finance Order, 1988 was defective
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in refusing further particulars on fair and reasonable price
  3. 3 Whether the Procurement Regulations, 2007 were applicable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conviction for unauthorized expenditure under s.36(1) of the Finance Order, 1988 was proper as her conduct was unauthorized and in conflict with procurement regulations; the acquittal on the corruption charge was correct due to lack of evidence of intent to obtain an undue advantage; the sentence imposed was justified given aggravating circumstances and mitigatory factors.

Court Disposition

appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed

Orders

  • conviction and sentence of fine M10,000.00 or five years imprisonment confirmed