Procedure

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

Matlosa v Matlosa (C of A (CIV) 77/18) [2020] LSCA 45 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Appeal against judgment– Court a quo misplaced part of the record- appellant applying for condonation for failure to comply with the rules- parties agreeing that in the absence of a proper record, condonation applications could not be considered- matter remitted to court for trial de novo before a different judge in order to rectify the mistrial

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

   HELD AT MASERU                                                      C OF A (CIV) 77/2018

                                                                                                               

In the matter between:

MAHOLA MATLOSA                                                                      APPELLANT

 

AND

Chen Zheng Hong v Gu Jingxin (C of A (CIV) 76/18) [2020] LSCA 44 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Spoliation - Mandament van spolie -Order to restore possession of immovable property (office space) - - Underlying rationale is that no one entitled to take law into own hands - Applicant for mandament not   required to prove that spoliator acquired possession of property.

Labour Court having no jurisdiction – Section 8 of the Labour Code conferring exclusive jurisdiction over matters within the Labour Code.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                            C OF A (CIV) N0.76/2018

                                                               

                                               

In the matter between:               

 

CHEN ZHENG HONG                                      1ST APPELLANT

Setuka v Setuka (C of A (CIV) 60/19) [2020] LSCA 42 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

An appeal cannot be heard against a judgment of which there is no indication in the record before a court of appeal, which may indeed have been reserved and not delivered. Thus this matter was struck off the roll. No cost order is made, as both parties have contributed to the waste of time and other judicial resources.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU

                                      C OF A (CIV) 60/2019

In the matter between:  

MATHAI SETUKA                                                                   APPELLANT

 

AND

 

MAHALI NKOTSI (MATSEPISO SETUKA)                    1ST RESPONDENT

THABISO SETUKA                                                        2ND RESPONDENT

Lekhooa v The Prime Minister (C of A (CIV) 58/19) [2020] LSCA 40 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Appellants obtaining relief in High Court but lodging appeal nonetheless- appeal essentially against reasoning of court – real issue in dispute between parties having been determined appeal of no practical effect;

 

Court holding appeal lies only against substantive judgment or order of  court and not reasoning of court-  appeal accordingly struck off roll with costs

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

 

C of A (CIV) No. 58/2019                                                                                                                   

HELD AT MASERU                                                  

 

In the matter between

 

PRIME MINISTER                                                                               1ST APPELLANT

Kolisang v Mahase (C of A (CIV) 55/19) [2020] LSCA 38 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

An application to review the final judgment of the Court of Appeal- there is inherent power in the Apex Court to review its decisions, when circumstances so dictate.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                               C OF A (CIV) 55/ 2019

 

In the matter between:

TAELO MICHAEL KOLISANG                                       APPELLANT

AND

THABISO VICTOR MAHASE                                         1ST RESPONDENT

FILL THE GAP HEALING MINISTRIES                          2ND RESPONDENT

Molapo v The Executor of the Late Estate (C of A (CIV) 38/18) [2020] LSCA 35 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Application for review of this court on judgment –mistake attributed to this court and raised by applicant- application papers not in order- matter postponed to next session.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

 

   HELD AT MASERU                                                        C OF A (CIV) 38/2018

                                                                                                    CCA 0037/2018

In the matter between:

MAMOHATO MOLAPO                                                        APPLICANT

KHOMO SOLOMON MOLAPO

 

AND

 

Onyelekere v Mokula (C of A (CIV) 31/17) [2020] LSCA 34 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Civil procedure- Appellant noting an appeal without grounds- Appellant appealing against award of costs without leave- Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act 1979, require Leave to appeal against an interlocutory and costs Order- Appeal struck off- whether notice of intention to oppose amounts to opposition- when no answering affidavit has been filed.

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                     C OF A (CIV) 31/2017

                                                                             CIV/APN/ 435/14

In the matter between:

EMMANUEL ONYELEKERE                                APPELLANT

AND

MOKULA                                                            RESPONDENT

 

Qhobela v Nkoe (C of A (CIV) 13/20) [2020] LSCA 26 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

The appellant should have used Rule 46(11) of the Subordinate Court Rules to rescind an order for their eviction from and the demolition of structures on the property they occupied, emanating from legal proceeding in which they did not participate. Seeking a declarator to avoid eviction was inappropriate. The High Court’s order of costs on a punitive scale against the appellants, based on material non-disclosure is set aside because counsel were nor given an opportunity to address the court on punitive costs.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                    C of A (CIV) 13/2020

                                                                                                                          

In the matter between

 

MPHAPHATHI QHOBELA                                             1ST APPELLANT                                                                                                          

Pages