Public law : review of August 2015 session of Court of Appeal

• Author: H. 'Nyane
• Date: 01 January 2016
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC196798
• Published date: 01 January 2016
• Pages: 19-32

PUBLIC LAW

‘Nyane, H⃰

INTRODUCTI ON

The August 2015 Session of the Court of Appeal of Lesotho

decided on rather unusually many cases on public law. Most

cases were on administrative law whilst few were on criminal

law, and one on constitutional law. On admi nistrative law, the

court has rehashed common doctrines such as ultra vires,

‘minimum curial intervention’ and the centrality of the rules

of natural justice in general, a nd the nemo iudex rule in

particular, to public law in Lesotho. The Court also had an

occasion to enter the intellectual furore about the types of

intention in criminal law in general, and murder in parti cular.

The longstanding controversy has been whether indeed dolus

eventualis carries a lesser blameworthines s than dolus directus.

1

The general policy of the supe rior courts both in Lesotho

2

and

South Africa

3

is that indeed dolus eve ntualis carries a lesser

blameworthiness . This approach is preferred by the courts

despite the fact that the two are but sheer types of intention.

⃰ LLB(NUL) ; LLM(NWU ); Public Law Lecturer, NUL.

1

See Smith, PT. ‘Recklessness in Dol us Eventualis’ South African

Law Journal 1979 p81; Als o Galliga n, DJ. ‘Resp onsibility for

Recklessness ’. Curre nt Legal Problems 1978 (31) 1 pp 55 -80; Als o

Whiting, R C. ‘Thoughts on Dolus Eventualis’ SACJ 198 8 1.

2

See for instance, t he decisions of the C ourt of App eal of Lesotho in

Paamo v Rex C of A (CRI) 06/2013; Tankis Moholisa v Rex C of A

(CRI) 02/2013; Ran thibi and Another v Rex C of A (CRI) 12/2007;

Lebeta v Rex C of A (CRI) 01/200 8.

3

See S v Ngubane 1985(3) SA 677; S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429.