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
Pakalitha Makhele & Ano. V The Qacha's Nek MagistrateCourt Mr. Bale (C of A (CRI) No 08/2024) [2024] LSCA 43 (1 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal struck the appeal off the roll because it challenged revisional proceedings without the required leave to appeal.
Pakalitha Makhele & Ano. V The Magistrate, Qacha's Nek Magistrate Court, Mr Bale & 2 Others (CRI/REV/0117/2023) [2024] LSHC 60 (12 April 2024)
No procedural irregularities occurred in the trial court; applicants were properly informed of their rights, charges were explained, and sentences for two separate incidents were not a duplication. The review application is misconceived and dismissed.
Source excerpt
Khoache v Magistrate for the District of Thaba-tseka (CRI/REV/0018/2021) [2022] LSHC 107 (12 July 2022)
There were no fundamental irregularities or miscarriage of justice in the proceedings; the applicant was informed of his rights and the absence of a sworn interpreter or repeated advisement did not vitiate the trial.
Source excerpt
Rex v Ndabe (CRI/S/0002/2022) [2022] LSHC 236 (16 June 2022)
The High Court of Lesotho sentenced the accused to 35 years' imprisonment for a sexual offence against a 14-year-old child, applying sentencing principles and aggravating factors.
Leuta v Senior Resident Magistrate Berea & Others (C of A (CRI); CRI/REV 3) [2017] LSCA 13 (12 May 2017)
The appellant's right to a fair trial was violated because he was not adequately informed of the seriousness of the charge, the compulsory minimum sentence, and the implications of pleading guilty before being called upon to decide on legal representation and to plead. The explanation given by the magistrate was insufficient, and the proceedings were therefore not fair.
Source excerpt
R v Rathakholi (CR 42; Rev/Case) [2014] LSHC 70 (26 July 2014)
The prescribed minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment was disproportionate to the gravity and circumstances of the offence, which involved repeated rape of a minor by her father over three years resulting in pregnancy. A higher sentence is justified to reflect the seriousness of the crime and societal interests.
Source excerpt
R v Shai (CRI/S 3 of 2013) [2014] LSHC 49 (6 March 2014)
The High Court has discretion under S31(1) of the Sexual Offences Act to impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum where mitigating factors exist. The Magistrate erred by not considering this discretion before referral. Given the accused’s low intelligence, lack of education, and unsophisticated nature, a sentence of eight years is appropriate instead of the minimum ten years.
Source excerpt
R v Tsotleho Thulo (CRI/S 4 of 2013) [2014] LSHC 6 (12 February 2014)
The accused's intoxication did not negate intention but was considered as an extenuating factor, precluding the death penalty. The gravity of the offence, the age of the victim, the accused's knowledge of his HIV status, and the breach of parental trust warranted a severe custodial sentence.
Source excerpt
Moliko v The Learned Magistrate (Mr. Motanyane) (CRI/REV 10 of 13) [2013] LSHC 101 (17 December 2013)
The High Court refused a criminal revision application, holding that the magistrate could rely on the complainant’s evidence and that no malice or miscarriage of justice was shown.
Ralibuseng v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/A 14 of 12) [2013] LSHC 98 (30 May 2013)
The magistrate violated the appellant's procedural rights by repeatedly postponing the bail application without justification, refusing bail without reasons, and failing to treat the application with urgency. The appellant was properly charged under section 3(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The magistrate unprocedurally led the complainant's evidence in chief, contrary to section 24. The magistrate's decision is set aside and the appellant is conditionally admitted to bail.
Source excerpt
Explore more
