Procedure

Lefalamang v The Learned Magistrate (Mrs Mthetho) (CIV/APN/436/2020) [2021]LSHC 14 (25 June 2021);

Share

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                      CIV/APN/436/2020

                                                                CIV/APN/BB/42/2020

In the matter between:

 

LEKHULA LEFALAMANG                                      1ST APPLICANT

ARABANG ZAKHIEL                                           2ND APPLICANT

Amalgamated Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Mokhehle (LC/REV/APN/26/20) [2021]LSHC 12 (07 June 2021);

Share

 

IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                      LC/REV/APN/26/2020

                                                                CIV/DLC/MSU/0040/20

In the matter between

 

AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS

(PTY) LTD                                                         1ST APPLICANT

 

MOREMI SOJANE                                               2ND APPLICANT

 

 

Manyokole V The Prime Minister (C of A (CIV) 15/2021) [2021] LSCA 9 (14 May 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

 

The DG of the DCEO sought declaratory relief and reviewing, correcting and or setting aside of a decision to establish a tribunal in terms of s 4 of Act 5 of 1999 (as amended) on the ground he was not afforded pre-decision hearing; including his suspension pending the outcome of the tribunal’s proceedings. DG also attacked legal notice establishing tribunal on ground that its terms of reference vague. Absence of audi being common cause and the suspension having occurred whilst matter was sub judice, the High Court held that DG ought to have been afforded audi but that its absence was not unfair in view of the wide publicity arising from the litigation instituted by the DG and that the tribunal was proper forum to clear his name. High Court also held that legal notice creating tribunal not void because particulars of what is to be investigated not stated therein as those particulars apparent from show-cause letter to DG. Relief seeking to set aside establishment of tribunal therefore dismissed.  High Court also holding that suspension of DG whilst issue sub judice a usurpation of judicial function and therefore set it aside.

 

Held on appeal that High Court correctly concluded that terms of reference for tribunal not vague. Once high court found audi was denied the proper inquiry ought to have been if the discretionary remedies sought by DG were appropriate in the circumstances. Court holding that such remedies ought to have been denied the DG on facts of this case. Although suspension clearly unlawful, held that setting it aside not in public interest.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                           C OF A (CIV) NO.: 15/2021                                                              CIV/APN/463/2020

                                                                       

In the matter between:

 

 MAHLOMOLA MOSES MANYOKOLE                   APPELLANT                           

 

AND

 

Qathatsi v The Commissioner General LRA (C of A (CIV) 06/2021) [2021] LSCA 5 (14 May 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Appellant representing himself; appeal struck off the roll because of failure to file certificate of leave to appeal; no costs order.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                              C OF A (CIV) NO. 06/2021

                                                                                                                                                     CCA/A/0001/2017

                                                                                                                                                     RAT/01/2016/17

The Prime Minister V Manyokole (CIV/APN/463/20) [2021]LSHC 04 (22 February 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

CIVIL PRACTICE: Functus officio- Judgment and an order of court brought for interpretation – Applicable principles considered and applied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CIV/APN/463/2020

 

In the matter between

 

THE PRIME MINISTER                                             1st APPLICANT

 

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LAW                2nd APPLICANT

 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE                                                3rd APPLICANT

 

Majalle v Lesotho National General Insurance Co. Ltd (CIV/T/56/10) [2020] LSHC 54 (03 July 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Motor vehicle accident – Negligence – Res ipsa loquitor – Application of – Res inter alios actae – Application of – Subrogation of Claim – Contigencies – calculations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

CIV/T/56/10

HELD AT MASERU

In the matter between:-

 

`MARETSEPILE MAJALLE                                      PLAINTIFF

 

VS

 

LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD                                                DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT

 

Kokoropo V Standard Lesotho Bank Limited (CIV/APN/403/17) [2020] LSHC 53 (09 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

The Applicant had not sought leave to sue Respondents in terms of Section 180 of Companies` Act 1967 as previously pronounced by the Court of Appeal having applied after a number of years, Condonation was refused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                         CIV/APN/403/2017

In the matter between:-

 

TSOTLEHO JOHANNES KOKOROPO                                Applicant

And

STANDARD LESOTHO BANK LIMITED                     1st Respondent

TEXAS OIL (LESOTHO) LIMITED (In liquididation)       2nd Respondent

Makhasane v Mokhochane (CIV/APN/118/14) [2019] LSHC 64 (14 November 2019);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Civil Practice –Applicant launching an application for declaration that when she was dismissed as Independent Electoral Commission’s employee she had already resigned – the 1st and 2nd respondent raising a point in limine that this court does not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter as it falls within the jurisdiction of the  Labour Court – point in limine upheld.

Held:  Further that the policy consideration of creating a specialized labour dispute resolution channels have to be respected and not undermined by bringing matters which fall within the Labour Court in the High Court.

Held:  Further that even though the applicant has sought a declarator which the High Court in terms of the High Court Act, of 1978, is empowered to entertain, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to deal with the declarators as the prayers sought can competently be dealt with by the Labour Court.             

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                                                   CIV/APN/118/2014

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

‘MALISEMA MAKHASANE                                                                     APPLICANT

AND

MAPHASA MOKHOCHANE                                                                    1ST RESPONDENT

Mochotoane v Officer Commanding VITD/CROU (C of A (CIV) 24/19) [2020] LSCA 52 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

The appellant wishes to appeal against an order of the High Court releasing a vehicle, confiscated by the Lesotho Police, to the sixth respondent. The vehicle is no longer in Lesotho. Condonation is required for several aspects of appellant’s conduct. In view of, inter alia, the prospects of success of this appeal, especially the fact that its outcome would have no practical effect or benefit for the appellant, condonation is not granted. The matter is struck off the roll of this Court, with costs.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOT                                                                                                                                  

HELD IN MASERU                                 C of A (CIV) No 24/2019

In the matter between:

 

NTHABELENG MOCHOTOANE                                APPELLANT                                                                                                    

and

Minister of Trade and Industry v Lesotho National Development Cooporation (C of A (CIV)78/19) [2020] LSCA 46 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Minister forming opinion directors of state enterprise unable or unfit to discharge function of office of director – Minister requiring directors to show cause why should not be relived of duties as directors – such directors making representations; Minister relieving directors of appointment thereafter;

 

High Court setting aside Minister’s decision on grounds Minister not entitled to form opinion before hearing directors and audi alteram partem rule not observed;

 

On appeal, held directors given opportunity to be heard – Minister entitled to, and has to, form opinion before requiring directors to show cause; further, in terms of s 8(7) of Lesotho National Development Act 1967, director ceases to hold office upon Minister forming opinion director is unable or unfit to hold office and instructing director to vacate office;

 

Approach to consolidation of cases and to joinder of parties discussed

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

C of A (CIV) No. 78/2019

                                                                                                                      CIV/APN/119/2017

                                                                                                                     CIV/APN/127/2017

HELD AT MASERU 

                                                

In the matter between

Pages