Mpetsane v The Magistrate Mr Khoeli (CRI/REV 20 of 18) [2019] LSHC 22 (14 February 2019)

Mpetsane v The Magistrate Mr Khoeli (CRI/REV 20 of 18) [2019] LSHC 22 (14 February 2019)

The application for condonation fails due to inordinate and unjustified delay. The applicants did not provide sufficient cause for the delay, and the reasons advanced (clerk of court's refusal, fear of reprisal, and impecuniosity) are not adequate. Even on the merits, the magistrate and prosecutor complied with section 240 procedures, and the evidence proved the applicants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The application is dismissed.

Citation
[2019] LSHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Sehloho Mpetsane; Applicant: Moabi Sekeiti; Applicant: Eremane Mochoane; Respondent: The Magistrate- Mr. Khoeli; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: Clerk of Court- Botha-Bothe; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Lesotho Correctional Service; Respondent: Commander – LDF; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Case Number
CRI/REV 20 of 18
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Conviction, Condonation for Delay, Plea of Guilty Procedure, Stock Theft
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedure Review of Conviction Condonation for Delay Plea of Guilty Procedure Stock Theft

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sehloho Mpetsane

Applicant

Moabi Sekeiti

Applicant

Eremane Mochoane

Applicant

The Magistrate- Mr. Khoeli

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Clerk of Court- Botha-Bothe

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Lesotho Correctional Service

Respondent

Commander – LDF

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether constitutional issues raised should be decided in this matter
  2. 2 Whether condonation for lodging this application after two years from the date of conviction and sentence should be granted
  3. 3 The role of judicial officers when accused pleads guilty under section 240 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

The application for condonation fails due to inordinate and unjustified delay. The applicants did not provide sufficient cause for the delay, and the reasons advanced (clerk of court's refusal, fear of reprisal, and impecuniosity) are not adequate. Even on the merits, the magistrate and prosecutor complied with section 240 procedures, and the evidence proved the applicants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.