HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
MAGISTRATE (MR MOLAPO) 1st Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
ATTORNEY-GENERAL 3rd Respondent
by the Hon. Mrs Justice Hlajoane on 13th March, 2006.
an Application for review. Applicant is asking this Court to review,
correct and set aside the decision of the first Respondent
refused bail in CR380/2006 at the Maseru Magistrate's Court.
counsel were before me Respondents' counsel intimated that she was
not objecting to the Application being granted as Applicant
given chance to cross examine either the grandfather or the
transpired before the Magistrate's Court was that, the accused
appeared before the Magistrate charged of contravening section
read with section 32 (1) of Act No3 of 2003, Sexual Offences Act, in
that he had unlawfully and intentionally compelled one
Halio Seleke a
girl of 14 years to engage in a sexual act with him. The charge had
been read to the Applicant and his rights to
bail and legal
representation were duly explained to him. The Applicant had then
applied for bail.
to the Magistrate's record, when Applicant applied for bail, the
complainant's grandfather objected to the granting of
that the complainant was still young and attending school. He feared
that Applicant was likely to interrupt her in
her schooling as he
wanted to abduct her. He stated further that the complainant was even
attending school in the village of the
record further showed that complainant's grandmother also advised the
court that complainant's brothers who were even much older
Applicant were very bitter about the alleged rape on their sister and
that she constantly discouraged them from assaulting
Bail was thus refused and Magistrate stated that it was for Accused's
showing or demonstrating how the two parents reacted in objecting to
the granting of bail, counsel for the Applicant stated that
jumped from the gallery and objected. According to him that was not
acceptable. He equated this to giving evidence from the
28 of the Sexual Offences Act is about the Rights of Complainant in
bail applications. This Section is about the right of
in attending proceedings where bail is considered and assisting the
Prosecutor on whether or not to allow bail
or where bail already
granted whether conditions of bail to be amended or supplemented.
Complainant under sub-section (b) of section 28 can request the
Prosecutor to present any relevant information or evidence in
considering the granting of bail.
particular instance it was not the Complainant but her grandfather
and grandmother who may be staying with the young girl.
I even had to
go to the Interpretation section, section 2 and looked at the
interpretation of the word Complainant. I did this
because what I had
in mind was where a Complainant was a minor. Would her presence
during the bail application serve any purpose?
Would she be able to
request anything from the Prosecutor? The
gave the Complainant as the person on whom rape has been committed
and nothing else.
have to think of what the intention of the Legislature was in
providing a particular section in an Act. Section 28 was included
protect the Complainant but failed to take into account the situation
of a minor Complainant or even say someone who is dumb.
of this nature, case law has to remedy the situation.
thusreferred the bail application back to the trial Magistrate for
re-trial on bail and that the objection to bail if any should
in a proper manner, be it by calling evidence or by affidavit. This
is an order made on review.
Applicant: Mr N.E. Putsoane
Respondents: Ms Khubetsoana
indebtedness may result. In Scutte v Meyer's Assignees 1927 CPD the
Court held in a case of a minor and his tutor that
the right of the
hypothec attaches from the moment when tutorship devolves and not
merely from the time the tutor commences to
act with negligence or
in our case the right to hypothec attached the moment the Defendant
had taken occupation of the premises and not when he
failed to honour
the term of their Sublease Agreement of paying monthly rental of
M12,000.00 a month.
thus succeeds in his claim for payment of arrear rentals from April
to December 2003 totalling an amount of M108,000.00
with interest at
18.5% per annum a tempore morae and costs of suit. The Defendant's
counter claim is dismissed with costs.
Plaintiff: Mr Phafane
Defendant: Mr Mabulu
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law