HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
LETSIE 1st Respondent
LEKOKOJA LEPHOTO 2nd Respondent
MASHAPHA 3rd Respondent
by the Honourable Acting Mr. Justice N. A. Matete on the 10th day of
18th June, 1993 applicant Motseki Mosoeu obtained a rule nisi calling
upon all three respondents herein to show cause, if
any, on the 24th
June, 1993, why:-
"1. (a) Ordinary periods of notice prescribed by the Rules shall
not be dispensed with on account of the urgency of the matter;
respondents shall not be ordered to release to applicant forthwith
the house or premises situated at Lower Seoli Lithoteng
respondents dispossessed applicant;
respondents shall not be ordered to release forthwith to applicant
the items listed in annexure ppl of which respondents dispossessed
abd 3rd respondents pay costs of this application and 2nd respondent
pay only in the event of opposing same.
be granted further and/or alternative relief.
prayer l(a) operate with immediate effect as interim order...."
was extended several times and the matter was postponed accordingly.
On the 6th December, 1993 the mater was
before me for argument.
and 3rd respondents have not filed any papers, and I presume they
have decided to abide by the decision of the Court.
common cause that the applicant lived as man and wife with one
Tseliso (now deceased), a relative of the 1st and 3rd respondents,
from 1974 until March, 1993 when she died. It is also common cause
that the two lived in the very house which forms subject of
in this case.
to applicant the house was built by him on the site that was
allocated to him personally and that he was in peaceful and
undisturbed possession of the same until the 8th March 1993 when he
was evicted from the house by the respondents against his will.
parties agree that they both contributed towards the burial costs of
the deceased Tseliso, however each one claims to have been
whilst the other merely made a contribution.
rather too long answering affidavit, the 1st respondent does not
specifically deny that that applicant was infact evicted
house against his will. Be contents himself by stating that the house
belonged to the late Tseliso and that after Tseliso's
had no reason to remain in occupation of the house. He admits that
applicant was made to vacate the house but denies
to have acted
unlawfully simply because the house did not belong to the applicant.
Respondent misses the point that what is protected
by mandament ran
spolie is possession and not ownership or the right to possess, YAKO
vs QANA 1973 (4) S.A. 735 (A).
has alleged that he was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the
house and property which form subject of dispute
here. He has also
alleged that he was unlawfully deprived of the said property without
his consent or due legal process SILLO vs
NAUDE 1929 AD 21, and this
has not been denied save to say that the dispossession was lawful in
that applicant is not the owner
of the premises.
satisfied that applicant has proved his case on a preponderance of
probability and that the 1st respondent has not
any reasonable defence.
is confirmed with costs against the 1st and 3rd respondents as
Applicant : Mrs V, Kotelo
Respondent : Mr. P. P. Mofolo
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