R v Attorney General and Others (CRI/APN 667 of 2012) [2012] LSHC 92 (20 December 2012)

R v Attorney General and Others (CRI/APN 667 of 2012) [2012] LSHC 92 (20 December 2012)

The points in limine raised by the 4th Respondent were dismissed as the application was urgent, the procedure was justified, the High Court had jurisdiction to review the Magistrate's order, and the doctrine of lis pendens did not apply as the review concerned the legality of the Magistrate's order, not the merits of the criminal case.

Citation
[2012] LSHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Rex; 1st Respondent: Attorney General; 2nd Respondent: Magistrate Maseru (Mrs. Mothebe); 3rd Respondent: Clerk of Court (Maseru Magistrate Court); 4th Respondent: ‘Mathapelo Makara
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Case Number
CRI/APN 667 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Review of Magistrate's Order
Outcome
Points in limine dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Review of Lower Court Orders, Release of Exhibits, Points in Limine, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Review of Lower Court Orders Release of Exhibits Points in Limine Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

Attorney General

1st Respondent

Magistrate Maseru (Mrs. Mothebe)

2nd Respondent

Clerk of Court (Maseru Magistrate Court)

3rd Respondent

‘Mathapelo Makara

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Review of Magistrate's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay and review was urgent and properly brought ex parte
  2. 2 Whether there was non-compliance with procedural rules (Rule 8(4))
  3. 3 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review the Magistrate's order

Ratio Decidendi

The points in limine raised by the 4th Respondent were dismissed as the application was urgent, the procedure was justified, the High Court had jurisdiction to review the Magistrate's order, and the doctrine of lis pendens did not apply as the review concerned the legality of the Magistrate's order, not the merits of the criminal case.

Court Disposition

Points in limine dismissed

Orders

  • All points in limine raised by the 4th Respondent are dismissed.