Mokhibo and Others v The Magistrate Thaba-Tseka and Others (CRI/APN 652 of 2012) [2013] LSHC 2 (4 February 2013)

Mokhibo and Others v The Magistrate Thaba-Tseka and Others (CRI/APN 652 of 2012) [2013] LSHC 2 (4 February 2013)

The application was dismissed because the applicants used the wrong procedure by seeking review instead of appeal, failed to demonstrate urgency, and improperly sought interim relief without a return date, contrary to the applicable rules.

Citation
[2013] LSHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Thabang Mokhibo; Applicant: Moalosi Mohlomi; Applicant: Berente Mafoea; Applicant: Molete Matjoi; Respondent: The Magistrate Thaba-Tseka; Respondent: The Clerk of Court; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
4 February 2013
Case Number
CRI/APN 652 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review Application / Judgment on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Review Vs Appeal, Procedural Law, Urgency in Applications
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Bail Review Vs Appeal Procedural Law Urgency in Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabang Mokhibo

Applicant

Moalosi Mohlomi

Applicant

Berente Mafoea

Applicant

Molete Matjoi

Applicant

The Magistrate Thaba-Tseka

Respondent

The Clerk of Court

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review Application / Judgment on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants could seek review of a magistrate's refusal to grant bail instead of appealing
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly brought as urgent
  3. 3 Whether the Attorney General was a necessary party (non-joinder)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants used the wrong procedure by seeking review instead of appeal, failed to demonstrate urgency, and improperly sought interim relief without a return date, contrary to the applicable rules.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed