Criminal Law – Sentencing

Khaketla V Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/T/0098/2017) [2022]LSHC 40 (02 June 2022);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Summary

Application for permanent stay of the prosecution – Applicants having faced the charges of corruption and attempted bribery for plus/minus five years without the case against them proceeding – Pre-trial Planning Session (PTPS) having been held with the counsel for Applicants having unusually and disturbingly placed everything under contestation and not disclosing their defence – This having the effect of defeating the whole purpose of PTPS – The prosecution having been initially conducted by the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) institution instructing counsel from South Africa (SA) – The case having been postponed for several times mostly at the instance of prosecution – The SA counsel having withdrawn from prosecuting the matter by writing a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) asking her to find his replacement quickly to avoid interfering with the proceeding of the case at the appointed date – The letter of withdrawal of a counsel having been copied to the defence team – DCEO having eventually advised the Court of its intention to withdraw the charges against the Accused persons due to lack of evidence to sustain them after the death of its star witness – The DCEO having asked for last postponement to enable it to finalise the discussion concerning the withdrawal of the charges against the accused persons with the DPP – On the scheduled date, the DPP having replaced the SA counsel and DCEO with a counsel from the DPP’s chambers and asked for yet another postponement for the new lawyer to acquaint himself with the matter – The defence having vigorously opposed this application for postponement on the ground that the DPP is deliberately delaying the finality of this matter thereby making it difficult for the accused persons to pursue their life endeavours.

Held:

  1. The objection against the application for the postponement sought for by the Crown is sustained;
  2. The prosecution against the Accused persons is permanently stayed as prayed for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                  CRI/T/0098/2017

                                                                                                  

 

In the matter between: -

 

 

MAMPHONO KHAKETLA                              1st APPLICANT THABO NAPO                                              2NDAPPLICANT

 

Rex V Ndabe (CRI/S/0002/2022) [2022]LSHC 36 (16 June 2022);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

Criminal law- Sentencing on Section 32(a)(vii) of the Sexual offences Act. mitigating factors on maximum sentence.

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

Held at Maseru

CRI/S/0002/2022

In the matter between

 

REX                                                                                         CROWN

 

AND

 

MOEKETSI NDABE                                                              ACCUSED

 

JUDGMENT

 

CORAM           :       M. G. HLAELE J

Mosooane v Mrs Letsika-The Magistrate (CIV/APN/201/19) [2019] LSHC 34 (22 June 2019);

Share
Search Summary: 

The Applicant wrongly approached this Court praying that it sets aside a sentence imposed by the Court of first incidence instead of appealing against the sentence – application resultantly dismissed without an order on costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(HELD AT MASERU)

 

 

                                                      CIV/APN/201/2019

In the matter between:

 

PINKIE MOSOOANE                                                                       APPLICANT

 

And

 

MRS. LETSIKA - THE MAGISTRATE                                  1ST RESPONDENT