Constitutional Law

Ramoepane v Director of Public Prosecution (CC 05/18) [2018] LSHC 33 (06 June 2018);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Constitutional litigation – Fundamental human rights – Criminal procedure – Right of accused to a fair trial in terms of section 12 (1) (c) of the Constitution of Lesotho 1993 – Right of the accused to be given access to prosecution witness statements prior to trial – Where there is reasonable risk that disclosure might lead to injury or intimidation of witness or otherwise impede proper ends of justice, Court to exercise proper discretion in balancing accused’s needs for a fair trial against legitimate interests of State – Timing and manner of disclosure – Principle of constitutional avoidance and principle of adjudicative subsidiarity encapsulated in the proviso to section 22(2) of the Constitution discussed.

Constitutional Case No. 05/2018

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Exercising Constitutional Jurisdiction)

 

 

In the matter between:

 

 

PITSO RAMOEPANE                                                  APPLICANT

 

 

And

 

 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS               1ST RESPONDENT

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL                                     2ND RESPONDENT

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

Tsupane v The Principal Secretary-Ministry of Public Service (CC 12/2018) [2020] LSHC 10 (05 March 2020);

Share
Search Summary: 

The applicants are employed by the Government of Lesotho as what are called Executive Secretaries. They are attached to the offices of the Attorney General and the Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Alongside the position of Executive Secretary there exists what are called Ministerial Secretaries. These cadres shared the same grading in terms of salary and benefits. All that suddenly changed when on the 11th April 2007 the Ministry of Public Service (the 1st Respondent) issued a circular titled: RE: Offices of the Ministers and Assistant Ministers Privileges or Personal Staff. The upshot of this circular was to upgrade the position of Ministerial Secretaries. The Executive Secretaries were not included in the up-grading. They charge that their exclusion is unconstitutional as it violates the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the Constitution of Lesotho. They seek a declaration to the effect. They want the 1st Respondent to forthwith upgrade their position to that equal to Ministerial Secretary with effect from 2nd March 2007 being the date when the ministerial secretaries upgrading came into force and that as I understand them, the difference be paid in arrear from that date. They allege that they are being discriminated against because the functions of Ministerial Secretaries are the same as those of the Executive Secretaries of the Judges, Attorney General and that the entry requirements are also the same.

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF LESOTHO

                                      CONSTITUTIONAL CASE N0.12/2018

 

In the matter between:

 

MAKHAHLISO JULIA TSUPANE                      1ST APPLICANT

MASEKETSO LEOKAOKE                                 2ND APPLICANT

‘MALEKHEMA MALAKIA                                3RD APPLICANT

‘MALEKOMOLA LEKOMOLA                          4TH APPLICANT

‘MASELIA MARABE                                         5TH APPLICANT

Ramoepana v Director of Public Prosecutions (C of A (CIV) 33/18) [2019] LSCA 44 (01 November 2019);

Share

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

HELD IN MASERU                                  C OF A (CIV) 33/2018

 

In the matter between:

 

PITSO RAMOEPANA                                               APPELLANT

 

And

 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS       1ST RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL                          2ND RESPONDENT

 

CORAM:                  DR K E MOSITO P

Transformation Resource Centre & 2 Others Vs Council of State & 62 others (Cons case No/08/2019) [2019] LSHC 10 (16 October 2019);

Share

CONS CASE/08/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Exercising Constitutional Jurisdiction)

(HELD AT MASERU)

In the matter between

 

INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION       URGENT APPLICANT

 

AND

 

THE GOVERNMENT OF LESOTHO                               64TH RESPONDENT

MINISTER OF FINANCE                                                   65TH RESPONDENT

Mokhosi & 15 others V Justice Charles Hungwe & 5 others (Cons Case No/02/2019) [2019] LSHC 9 (02 May 2019);

Share

CONS CASE NO/02/2019

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(HELD AT MASERU)

In the matter between

TŠELISO MOKHOSI & 15 OTHERS                        APPLICANTS

AND

JUSTICE CHARLES HUNGWE                                1ST RESPONDENT

THE PRIME MINISTER                                             2ND RESPODNENT

MINISTER OF LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS

Mokhosi and Others v Hungwe N.O. and Others (Cons Case No 02/2019) [2019] LSHC 1 (02 May 2019);

Share
Search Summary: 

Constitutional Law - declaratory order sought by Applicants — to set aside appointments of 1st Respondent and foreign Judges - applicants allerging control of JSC by Executive arm of Government - said to interfere in appointments to ensure harsh punishment for Applicants — violating principle of independence of the Judiciary — and possible outcome being violation of Applicants right to a fair hearing before an impartial Court — whether case for Applicants established and proved — costs order in Constitutional Cases — court may not depart from the accepted rules and principles unless the Applicants case is frivolous and vexatious.
 

Ramakatsa and Others v Commissioner of Police and Others (Constitutional Case No.22/2018) [2019] LSHCONST 1 (16 April 2019);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Application for habeas corpus and release from unlawful detention – Applicants’ relatives applying to court – Whether relatives have locus-standi – Constitution 1993, section 22(1)

Liberty – Detention – Lawfulness – Prescribed purpose – Applicants arrested and detained in police custody on charge of robbery – Period of detention extending beyond the constitutional and statutory period of 48 hours – No charge laid throughout period of detention and applicants not brought before court for remand – Warrants for further detention granted without notice to applicants or their lawyer – Whether restriction of liberty imposed for purposes other than those prescribed in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act – Constitution 1993, sections 4(1)(b), 6; Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981 sections 32, 33 and 34

Individual application – Hindrance – Access to lawyer while in detention – Legal representation when application for further detention made – Applicants’ lawyer denied access by the police – Interrogation used as reason for denying access to lawyer and family members – Whether infringement of the right to legal advice and legal representation – Constitution 1993; Judges’ Rules.

Interrogation by police – Denial of access to lawyer – Evidence collected in the process  - Whether evidence to be declared inadmissible in subsequent trial – Whether right to presumption of innocence violated – Constitution 1993, section 12(2) (a).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

Held at Maseru

CONSTITUTIONAL CASE NO.22/2018

 

In the matter between:

 

‘MAABELE RAMAKATSA                                               1ST APPLICANT

NTSOAKI SENTJE                                                               2ND APPLICANT

Peta v Minister of Law, Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights (CC 11/2016) [2018] LSHC 3 (18 May 2018);

Share
Search Summary: 

Application to declare sections 104,102 and 101 of the Penal Code Act no.6 of 2010 inconsistent with the Constitution----Held, on account of the impugned sections’ overbreadth, vagueness of the concepts used, the availability of civil remedies and the overall undesirability of criminalizing defamation, they are declared inconsistent with section 14 of the Constitution---held further that the declaration of invalidity shall operate retrospectively. Applicant awarded costs of suit

 IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF LESOTHO

                                                                                         CC 11/2016

In the matter between

 

BASILDON PETA                                                           APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER OF LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL           FIRST RESPONDENT

AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RIGHTS                                                     

Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd v Moepa and Others (Constitutional Case No.12 of 2014) [2015] LSHC 11 (09 June 2015);

Share

 

 

Constitutional Case No.12 of 2014

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Constitutional Jurisdiction)

 

 

In the matter between:

 

SECURITY LESOTHO (PTY) LTD                           APPLICANT

 

 

and

 

LEBOHANG MOEPA                                                 1ST RESPONDENT

President of the Court of Appeal v The Prime Minister and Others (C of A (CIV) No 62/2013) [2014] LSCA 1 (04 April 2014);

Share

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

JUDGMENT

 

 

Case No: C of A (CIV) No 62/2013

 

 

In the matter between:

 

 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL                                    APPELLANT

 

and