Civil Remedies

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

Minet Lesotho (Pty)Ltd v Ministry of Defence and National Security (C of A (CIV) 15/20) [2020] LSCA 27 (30 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Award of tender for aviation insurance by Ministry of Defence complained of to procurement oversight body in Ministry of Finance; contract signed while tender process suspended; signing found to be irregular and unlawful; tender process set aside.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                               C OF A (CIV) 15 / 2020                                          

 

In the matter between

 

MINET LESOTHO (PTY) LTD                                                            1STAPPELLANT

 

LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD                                             2NDAPPELLANT

 

and

 

Mochochoko v The Prime Minister (CIV/APN/141/20) [2020] LSHC 35 (26 June 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

CIVIL PRACTICE: Applicant, a village chief, challenges Government’s decision to deal with the scourge of Covid-19 through other channels’ than the vehicle of Disaster Management Authority- Applicant’s locus standi challenged- Application dismissed on the basis of the applicant’s lack of locus standi.

                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                                                    CIV/APN/141/2020

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

DAVID MOCHOCHOKO                                                                            APPLICANT                                                                         

AND

 

Matela v Ministry of Local Government and chieftainship Affairs (CIV/APN/145/17) [2020] LSHC 32 (28 May 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

Application to have the applicant gazetted as a Chief for general information, in terms of s. 14(2) of the Chieftainship Act no.22 of 1968

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

 

HELD AT MASERU                        CIV/APN/145/17

 

                                                      

In the Matter Between:-

 

KHAKETLA MATELA                      APPLICANT                                                                            

AND

 

MINISTRY OF LOCAL                  1STRESPONDENT

 

GOVERNMENT

Molapo v Molapo (CIV/APN/94/20) [2020] LSHC 31 (25 September 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

CIVIL PRACTICE: The applicant applying for contempt of court against the respondent for defying an order of court- Contempt of court principles re-stated and applied- The respondent found to be in contempt.

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

HELD AT MASERU                                                         CIV/APN/94/20

 

In the Matter Between:-

 

‘MALEROTHOLI MOLAPO                                           APPLICANT                                               

AND

 

TEBATSO MOLAPO                                                    1ST RESPONDENT

 

STATION COMMANDER

Friedland v Mosotho (CCA/0063/20) [2020] LSHC 25 (15 October 2020);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

CIVIL PRACTICE: The applicants seeking rescission of an order in terms of Rule 45 of the High Court Rules- Definition of a director of a company considered and applied- Application for rescission granted as prayed.

CCA/0063/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

 

In the matter between:

RICHARD FRIEDLAND                                                                1ST  APPLICANT

CHRISTOFFEL SMITH                                                                 2ND   APPLICANT

NETCARE HOSPITALS GROUP (PTY) LTD                            3RD   APPLICANT

Makhaba v The Commissioner of Police (CIV/T/319/11) [2017] LSHC 38 (14 November 2017);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

CIV/T/319/2011

 

In the matter between:

 

JOEL DIAMOND MAKHABA                           PLAINTIFF

 

And

 

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE       1ST RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNY GENERAL                     2ND RESPONDENT

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

CORAM:                          T. NOMNGCONGO

Makh'apha v The Commissioner of Police (CIV/T/130/13) [2018] LSHC 34 (15 November 2018);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

                                                                                                                                                                                                         CIV/T/130/2013

 

In the matter between:

 

MAHLOMOLA MAKH’APHA                                               PLAINTIFF

and

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE                           1ST DEFENDANT

Three Zeds v Ranthocha (CIV/APN/61/09) [2018] LSHC 32 (30 August 2018);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

                                                        CIV/APN/61/09

 

In the matter between:-

 

THREE ZEDS (PTY) LTD                                           APPLICANT

 

And

 

LINEO ‘MANTSATSI RANTHOCHA                         1ST RESPONDENT

PROPERTY INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD               2ND RESPONDENT

MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT                    3RD RESPONDENT

Machakela v Machakela (CIV/APN/603/12) [2018] LSHC 31 (16 September 2018);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

The applicant has approached court for an order in the terms :

  • That account number 022000237586 held at Nedbank Lesotho be freezed pending finalisation of these proceedings and any other account held by the 1st respondent in Lesotho wherein the proceeds of the estate of late Sello Machakela were deposited into from the pension fund that the late deceased was a member.

 

  • That the 1st respondent be interdicted from dealing with or disposing off the assets of the late Sello Machakela pending appointment of the executor by the Master of the High Court.

 

  • That the 1st respondent be and is hereby interdicted and restrained from holding out himself as a sole heir alternatively an executor ofthe estate of the late Sello Machakela.

 

  • That the appointment of the 1st respondent as a sole heir alternatively an executor of the estate of the late Sello Machakela be and it is hereby declared unlawful.

 

  • That it is hereby declared that the applicant, 1st respondent, 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent are equal beneficiaries in the estate of the late Sello Machakela.

 

  • That the 6th respondent be and is hereby ordered to appoint any suitable person other than any of the heirs or heiresses as an executor and/or executrix of the estate of the late Sello Machakela.

 

3.        That 1st respondent should pay costs of suit.

4.        That applicant be granted such further and/or alternative relief.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

                                                                                      CIV/APN/603/2012

In the matter between:

 

KGOTHALANG SYLVIA MACHAKELA                           APPLICANT

And

MORAPEDI NELSON MACHAKELA                       1st RESPONDENT

THABANG EDGAR MACHAKELA                          2nd RESPONDENT

Pages