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
Sekamane v Director of Pubic Prosecutions (CRI/APN 633 of 98) [1998] LSCA 108 (20 November 1998)
Bail was granted to an accused charged with armed robbery after the court found no evidence of flight risk, witness interference, or obstruction.
R v Leluma and Another (C of A (CRI) 6 of 1996) [1998] LSCA 66 (1 July 1998)
The appeal was allowed because the trial was fundamentally flawed by procedural irregularities, an incomplete and unreliable record, missing evidence, improper conduct by the trial judge and counsel, and irregular participation of assessors, all of which prejudiced the appellants' right to a fair trial and rendered the convictions unsafe.
Source excerpt
Molapo v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/APN 412 of 97) [1997] LSHC 71 (2 September 1997)
The High Court of Lesotho dismissed an armed robbery accused’s bail application, finding a serious risk of absconding and concern for public safety.
Sekhonyana v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/A 29 of 94) [1995] LSCA 35 (13 February 1995)
The court upheld convictions for theft and armed robbery, but reduced sentence after considering the appellant’s youth and the trial court’s approach to sentence.
Lerotroli v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/APN/585/93; CRI/APN/690/93) [1994] LSCA 22 (8 February 1994)
The High Court of Lesotho dismissed a renewed bail application, finding no material change of circumstances after a prior refusal.
Tlebere v R (CRI/APN 323 of 90) [1990] LSCA 168 (31 October 1990)
The High Court of Lesotho refused bail to an armed robbery accused, holding that the risk of absconding or witness interference could frustrate the ends of justice.
Ralengana v R (C of A (CRI) 6 of 1989) [1990] LSCA 122 (27 July 1990)
The Court of Appeal upheld an armed robbery conviction, finding the appellant was reliably identified and that corroborating evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
Explore more
