Trial Practice

Lemphane Diamond Mine V Minister of Mining (CCA/0016/2022) [2022]LSHC 08 (25 February 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

Application – Application to suspend execution of Minister’s decision to terminate mining lease – whether it’s a prayer for specific performance or temporary interdict – Prayer for specific performance has its foundation from breach of contract which must be pleaded – A prayer mischaracterised and refused absent some of the requirements of temporary interdict.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                               CCA/0016/2022

In the matter between:

LEMPHANE DIAMOND MINE (PTY) LTD     APPLICANT   

And

MINISTER OF MINING                                   1ST RESPONDENT

LAND ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY   2ND RESPONDENT

Nothern Investment Holdings (PTY) Ltd V The Town Clerk Maputsoe Urban Council (CCA/0015/2022) [2022]LSHC 06 (22 February 2022);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

Jurisdiction – Commercial Court established to hear disputes arising out of commercial or business transactions – Refusal to issue a building permit cannot be classified as restraint of trade or a dispute arising out of a commercial or business transaction – Commercial Court lacking jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against Government to issue a building permit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                   CCA/0015/2022

 

In the matter between:

NORTHERN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD        APPLICANT                                                                        

And

THE TOWN CLERK MAPUTSOE URBAN COUNCIL                    1st RESPONDENT

Leloli Trading (PTY) LTd v Mafeteng District Council (CCA/0075/2021) [2022]LSHC 04 (09 February 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

Interim Interdict: requirements discussed – applicant failing to demonstrate absence of any other satisfactory remedy – application dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                   CCA/0074/2021

 

In the matter between:

 

LELOLI TRADING (PTY) LTD                           APPLICANT                                                              

And

 

MAFETENG DISTRICT COUNCIL         1ST RESPONDENT

Ramathebane V Nedbank Lesotho Limited (CCT/0421/2017) [2021]LSHC 22 (10 December 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary

Rescission of summary judgment- Rule 45(1)(a) -Judgment granted in the absence of the applicant in circumstances where the applicant had not filed affidavit to resist summary judgment application - Order not erroneously sought or granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                           CCT/ 0421/ 2017

 

JEREMANE RAMATHEBANE                                            APPLICANT

AND

NEDBANK LESOTHO LTD                                        1ST RESPONDENT

Selemela Construction (PTY) Ltd V Road Fund & Others (CCA/0084/2021) [2021]LSHC 21 (26 November 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

Interdict pendente lite – financial considerations alone not enough to justify urgency – Applicant still required to state why it could not be afforded a substantial relief in a hearing in due course – requirements for temporary interdict need to be demonstrated and assessed in conjunction with one another

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                               CCA/0084/2021

In the matter between:

SELEMELA CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD     APPLICANT       

And

ROAD FUND                                                   1ST RESPONDENT

PEMAHN CONSULTING (PTY) LTD      2ND RESPONDENT

Morrison V Salvation for All Churches (CCT/0259/2019) [2021]LSHC 19 (09 November 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

 

Judgments and orders – Rescission – Court granting default judgment in disregard for appearance to defend and exception which were entered out of time – High Court Rule 45(1) – Whether an order erroneously granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO- COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CCT/0259/2019

 

In the matter between: -

 

MAMELLO MORRISON                  1ST APPLICANT/1ST DEFENDANT

 

MORRISON FAMILY PRODUCTS

t/a SEQHAQHABOLA PRODUCTS  2ND APPLICANT/2ND DEFENDANT                                

And

 

Rammolla V Big Dreamers Savings and Credit (CIV/APN/206/2020) [2021]LSHC 72 (29 April 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

 

Review proceedings – Applicant challenging review powers of Chief Magistrate, over small claims Court proceedings – Chief Magistrate not having reviewed or done anything in the original proceedings – The Court having found the proceedings to have been prematurely instituted.

 

Held: The rule nisi granted is discharged and the application dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                        CIV/APN/206/2020

In the matter between:

MAKANANELO RAMMOLLA                                    1ST APPLICANT

SEBABATSO CHEPESA                                     2ND APPLICANT

MAMPE KHANYE                                              3RD APPLICANT

AMELIA SELLO                                                4TH APPLICANT

Naeem V Maseru Cash & Carry LTD (PTY) (CCT/0402/2019) [2021]LSHC 70 (03 May 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Application for rescission of the judgment- The judgment having been granted by default – The ground for rescission being that default judgment was sought for and granted erroneously against the Applicant personally yet the debt was incurred while he was acting for the company – The Applicant having incurred the debt as a sole trader before the company was registered – There being no evidence that the Applicant had at any stage alluded the 1st Respondent about the change of his personal status to that of the Company, the latter was entitled to sue him in his private capacity.  Thus, application refused.  No order on costs.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                             CCT/0401/2019

CCA/0401/2021

 

In the matter between:

ASIF MAHMOOD NAEEM                                              APPLICANT

AND

MASERU CASH AND CARRY (PTY) LTD           1ST RESPONDENT

DEPUTY SHERIFF (L.MIKA)                          2ND RESPONDENT

 

Rex V Kamoli (CRI/T/0002/2018) [2021]LSHC 66 (19 May 2021);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD IN MASERU                                                     CRI/T/0002/2018

 

In the matter between:

 

REX                                                                              APPLICANT                                                                         

Vs

 

TLALI KAMOLI                                                          1ST RESPONDENT

 

Mofolo V Director of Public Prosecution (CRI/T/0010/2018) [2021]LSHC 65 (23 April 2021);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD IN MASERU                                                     CRI/T/0010/2018

 

In the matter between:

 

MOTHIBELI MOFOLO                                                 1ST APPLICANT

MABITLE MATONA                                                    2ND APPLICANT

HALEOKOE TAASOANA                                            3RD APPLICANT

                                                                                               

Vs

 

Pages