Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Lesotho decisions
Decisions matching the current search
R v Posholi (Review Case 29 of 2011) [2011] LSHC 114 (28 July 2011)
High Court review confirming a guilty plea conviction and three-year sentence for housebreaking with intent to assault and assault, after an attack on a complainant and her children.
Motsoene & Others v Motai & Another (CIV/T 15; C of A (CIV)) [2002] LSCA 133 (11 October 2002)
Convictions cannot stand where the facts outlined by the prosecution do not disclose the commission of the offence, even after a guilty plea. Sentences for different offences must not be lumped together if the offences attract different punishments.
Source excerpt
R v Khetlane & Another (CRI/T 84 of 2000) [2002] LSCA 78 (12 June 2002)
Both accused were found to have acted together in the killing of the deceased and theft of her property. The court found that, although there was no evidence of premeditation, the use of a lethal weapon on vulnerable parts of the body showed subjective intention to kill. The accused were found guilty of murder with extenuating circumstances and theft common, not housebreaking, as entry could have been gained through an unlocked door.
Source excerpt
Khoptjoa v R (CRI/A 16 of 2001) [2002] LSCA 10 (3 April 2002)
The High Court varied two concurrent burglary-and-theft sentences after finding the magistrate gave no reasons and did not show mitigation was considered.
R v Khalane (Review 11 of 2002) [2002] LSCA 29 (26 February 2002)
Automatic review in a housebreaking and theft matter found the evidence did not link the accused to the offence, so the conviction was quashed.
R v Moeno & Another (Cri; Rev. 5; Rev. Case; Rev. Order) [2002] LSCA 35 (18 February 2002)
On automatic review, the court set aside a conviction where the prosecution facts did not disclose the offence, and corrected an irregular conviction and sentence for the co-accused.
R v Taole (CR.399/01; Review Case 56/2001; Review Order NO.6/2001) [2001] LSCA 117 (2 November 2001)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for housebreaking and theft because the agreed facts did not prove all essential elements.
Kane v R (CRI/APN/14/2000; MASERU CR/848/2000) [2000] LSCA 147 (23 August 2000)
The court set aside a conviction entered on a guilty plea because the prosecutor’s facts did not connect the accused to the housebreaking and theft.
R v Naima (Cri 771 of 2000) [2000] LSCA 86 (18 May 2000)
The court quashed a housebreaking conviction because the agreed facts did not prove unlawful entry, breaking, or entering, though the other convictions were upheld.
R v Malimabe (CRI/T 4 of 98) [1998] LSCA 72 (30 July 1998)
The court found that while the accused was in possession of recently stolen property and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove murder or housebreaking beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully received stolen property, constituting a contravention of section 344 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of 1981.
Source excerpt
Explore more
