Actions and applications

Rex V Kamoli (CRI/T/0001/2018) [2022]LSHC 17 (11 May 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

 

Summary

Recusal application – prosecutor absenting himself from court proceedings without leave of court and attends to another case without knowledge of court – application for postponement filed by the DPP because  of absence of prosecutor – misleading information placed before court in support of such application – prosecutor being the source of such information – another prosecutor appointed – previous prosecutor disqualified from appearing in the case – remarks disapproving manner in which the Crown counsel conducted himself – whether the disqualification of the prosecutor and remarks made in course of proceedings constitute reasonable apprehension of bias – ethical obligations of prosecutors – Speedy Court Trials Act, 2002, sections 5(1), 9(4) and 12(4)

 

 

REPORTABLE

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

Held at Maseru

CRI/T/0001/2018

In the matter between:

 

REX                                                                                            APPLICANT

                                        

 And

 

KENNEDY TLALI KAMOLI                                                            1ST ACCUSED

Motloli Catering V LSP/WBHO Joint Venture (CCA/0025/2020) [2022]LSHC 10 (17 March 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

     SUMMARY

 

CIVIL PRACTICE: Applicant lodging an application in circumstances where material dispute of facts reasonably foreseeable- Application dismissed on this basis alone, with costs.

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                         CCA/0025/2020

 

In the matter between:

 

NTŠELISENG MOTLOLI T/A MOTLOLI CATERING     APPLICANT

 

AND

 

LSP/WBHO JOINT VENTURE                                  1ST RESPONDENT

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

First National Bank of Lesotho Ltd V Ncheke (CCT/0325/2021) [2021]LSHC 25 (15 December 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

CIVIL PRACTICE: Application for summary judgment- whether it is permissible for the applicant to lodge same after the respondent had filed the plea- Held, it is permissible to do so, - Respondent failing to show that she has a bona fide defence, summary judgment granted with costs.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(COMMERICIAL DIVISION)

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                              CCT/0325/2021

 

In the matter between: -

 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LESOTHO LTD                  PLAINTIFF

 

AND

 

‘MATHATO NCHEKA                                                          DEFENDANT

 

Makeka V Africa Media Holdings (CCA/0085/2021) [2022]LSHC 03 (09 February 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

Summary

Ex parte application – applicant failing to be ultra – scrupulous in obtaining interim relief and pursuing meritless application – such conduct attracting discharge of the rule nisi with punitive costs.

Tacit hypothec – principles discussed – failure to prove rentals owing – application dismissed.

Costs de bonis propriis – responsibility of Counsel towards Court vis a vis his client – Counsel mulct with costs for twisting the facts and assisting client to pursue unarguable case.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                          CCA/ 0085/ 2021

 

 

FELLENG ‘MAMAKEKA MAKEKA                                   APPLICANT

 

AND

 

AFRICA MEDIA HOLDINGS                                    1ST RESPONDENT

Pitsi V The Commander Lesotho Defence Force (CIV/T/395/2021) [2022]LSHC 02 (21 February 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

RULING

 

Condonation application - For failure by applicant to file summons against a Government Ministry within two years - Court constrained by Section 6 of the Government Contracts and Proceedings Act 4 of 1965 - Condonation application dismissed for being brought out of time.

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                         CIV/T/395/2021     

 

In the matter between:

`MATHABISO PITSI                                                             PLAINTIFF

and

THE COMMANDER, LESOTHO                               1st RESPONDENT

DEFENCE FORCE

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE                                 2nd RESPONDENT

'Mota V Mahomed (C of A (CIV) 19/2021) [2021] LSCA 40 (12 November 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Application for late noting of the appeal- Appellant waiting for reasons, when order of the Court is available- Appeal is against an order and not reasons- filing of appeal delayed by lack of confidence that there were prospects of success- No plausible reasons in support of condonation and no prospects of success- condonation refused.

                

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

                                                                             C OF A (CIV) NO 19/2021

          LC/APN/15/2020

HELD AT MASERU

In matter between:

NOKO’ MOTA N.O. (Curator bonis Estate of Rapotlaki Mota)

                                                                                           1ST APPELLANT

Taole V Mangaula (C of A (CIV) 22/2021) [2021] LSCA 39 (12 November 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Practice -  Parties -  Joinder of parties - When required -  Necessary parties - Another party to dispute should be joined - Appeal - Appeal Court taking point of non-joinder mero motu - Form of order.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU

C OF A (CIV) 22/2021

In the matter between:

 

NTHABELENG TAOLE                            FIRST APPELLANT

NYOLOHELO MOHALE                            SECOND APPELLANT

 

And

 

JIMMY MONGAULA                                1ST RESPONDENT

‘MAMOLEBOHENG MONGAULA               2ND RESPONDENT

 

Mokaeane V P.S Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations (CIV/APN/462/2020) [2021]LSHC 73 (04 March 2021);

Share

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                        CIV/APN/462/2020

In the matter between:

RETHABILE MAHLOMPHO MOKAEANE                   APPLICANT                                            

AND

P.S MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS                        1ST RESPONDENT

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND

P.S Ministry of Labour and Employment Makhoabane Ledimo V Russel (CIV/APN/208/2019) [2021]LSHC 69 (15 April 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Application for rescission – The Respondent having been dismissed from work by the 1st Applicant – The 1st Applicant having been the Principal Secretary of the 3rd Applicant – The 4th Applicant having been the lawful representative of the Applicants – The Respondent having instituted an application for review against her dismissal on the ground of having been irregularly conducted – The Applicants having not answered the application but proposed a settlement – The Applicants having not appeared before Court on the date scheduled for submission of the deed of settlement – The proposed deed of settlement not having brought before Court – The time for filing answering affidavit having been elapsed – The Court having granted the application as prayed for in the Notice of Motion – The Applicants having consequently instituted the present application for rescission through a counsel working for the 3rd Applicant. 

Held:

  1. The counsel for the Applicants have no authority to represent them since his letter of appointment refers to a different case from the one before Court;
  2. The Applicants failed to establish the elements for the application for rescission;
  3. The application for rescission is dismissed with costs at an attorney and client scale. 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                            CIV/APN/208/2019

In the matter between:

P.S MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT         1ST APPLICANT

MAKHOABANE LEDIMO – N.O.

(CHAIRPERSON OF HEARING)                              2ND APPLICANT

MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT               3RD APPLICANT

Pages