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
Mpetsane v The Magistrate Mr Khoeli (CRI/REV 20 of 18) [2019] LSHC 22 (14 February 2019)
A late criminal review of stock-theft convictions was dismissed because condonation failed and the magistrate properly followed guilty-plea procedure.
R v Macheli and Another (CR 336 of 2000) [2000] LSCA 117 (13 November 2000)
The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s ruling that section 3(2) of the Stock Theft Act did not clearly create an offence and upheld the exception.
R v Macheli and Another (C R 336/2000; Review Order 1/2000) [2000] LSCA 116 (13 November 2000)
The Court of Appeal held that section 3(2) of the Stock Theft Act 2000 did not create a criminal offence, so the exception was rightly upheld.
R v Lenyepa (CRI/A 34 of 95) [1995] LSCA 184 (24 November 1995)
The appeal was allowed because the charge and record were defective, and the trial process raised procedural irregularities that amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
R v Lenyora (CRI/A 93 of 91) [1995] LSCA 121 (14 August 1995)
The appellant pleaded guilty, accepted the facts, and the facts disclosed the offence of stock theft. There was no evidence of illegality or informality in the conviction or sentence. The appellant's actions, including slaughtering the cow after the chief's warning and his association with accused 1, established common purpose and justified the conviction and sentence.
Source excerpt
Sepeqane v R (CRI/A 15 of 94) [1995] LSCA 71 (26 April 1995)
The court set aside a theft conviction entered under the wrong law and substituted a conviction under section 16 of the Stock Theft Proclamation 1921, with a reduced sentence.
Ts'okolo v R (CR1/A 17 of 94) [1995] LSCA 30 (3 February 1995)
Criminal appeal against sentence for stock theft. The High Court reduced a five-year term to two and a half years after finding the sentence excessive.
R v Badela (CR 166/89; CRI/A/49/91) [1994] LSCA 146 (19 August 1994)
The charge was valid under common law, time was not of essence due to theft being a continuing offence, and no prejudice was suffered by the appellant; conviction confirmed.
Source excerpt
Ramabanta v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/A 122 of 93) [1994] LSCA 107 (15 June 1994)
The court allowed a criminal appeal, holding that the stock-theft charge was defective and uncertain, and quashed the conviction.
R v Matsela and Another (CRI/A 80 of 94) [1994] LSCA 57 (17 March 1994)
The High Court of Lesotho set aside a stock-theft conviction after finding the plea and outline of facts failed to disclose the offence or any competent verdict.
Explore more
