Civil Procedure

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

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

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

 

Pages