Contract Law

Attorney General V Frazer Solar GMBH (CIV/APN/332/2021) [2022] LSHC 141 (09 November 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

 

CONTRACT- The application by the Government of Lesotho to review a contract entered into by the minister without  the authority of Cabinet and the Minister of Finance and for breaching the Constitution of Lesotho 1993, Public Financial Management and Accountability Act and  Procurement Regulations- Arbitration clause in a contract does not survive the nullification of a contract concluded in breach of the Constitution and other applicable laws.

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CIV/APN/332/2021

 

In the matter between:

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL                                             APPLICANT

 

AND

 

FRAZER SOLAR GMBH                                            1ST RESPONDENT

FRAZER SOLAR (PTY) LTD                                     2ND RESPONDENT

Ramoabi V Principal Secretary -Ministry of Education and Training (CIV/APN/106/2021) [2022] LSHC 132 (27 September 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Law of Contract – Fixed Term Service Contract signed between the parties – Applicant entitled to gratuity in terms of the signed contract – Respondents reneging liability of gratuity -  Caveat Subscriptor principle and Doctrine of quasi mutual assent applied – Parole Evidence Rule also applicable – Respondents liable to pay applicant the gratuity pursuant to the contract.

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

                                               

                                                                                      CIV/APN/106/2021

 

HELD AT MASERU

 

In the matter between

 

’MANTHATISI RAMOABI                                                  APPLICANT

 

and

 

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY – MINISTRY OF

Khasane V Khasane (CIV/APN/396/2022) [2022] LSHC 99 (22 August 2022);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

Law of Contract – Application based on Contract for the benefit of a third party vis Stipulatio alteri – The alleged contract not annexed as evidence – No evidence pleaded to support applicant’s case – Application dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CIV/APN/396/2021

 

In the matter between:-

 

MATSIU ANNA KHASANE                                        1ST APPLICANT

LIBOKANYO JOSEPHINE KHASANE                     2ND APPLICANT

 

AND                                                          

 

MARETSEPILE KHASANE

Lefoka V Barali Estate (CCA/0144/2019) [2022]LSHC 65 (25 August 2022);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

 

LAW OF CONTRACT: Cancellation of contract based on breach- fairness and unreasonableness as grounds for avoiding enforcement of a contract- Held, that these cannot be the basis for avoiding enforcement of a contract- undue influence as a  ground for terminating an agreement- mistake as to the motive for entering into a contract- Held, that  such does not vitiate a contract- Practice and Procedure- foreseeability of a material dispute of fact arising in motion proceedings- the approach to be adopted articulated and applied.

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(COMMERCIAL COURT)

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CCA/0144/2019

 

In the matter between:

 

‘MATHATO MATSELISO LEFOKA                         APPLICANT

 

AND

 

BARALI ESTATES PROPERTIES                             1ST RESPONDENT

KEL Property Company (PTY) LTd V Phomolong Investment (PTY) Ltd (CCA/83/2013) [2022]LSHC 43 (09 June 2022);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

                                               SUMMARY

LAW OF CONTRACT: Presence of arbitration clause in the contract- whether it ousts the jurisdiction of the court to hear an arbitrable issue- Held, it does not as the aggrieved party must apply in terms of section 7 of the Arbitration Act of 1980 for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration-  A party electing to abide by the contract through its conduct despite the presence of its breaches- whether later he/she can rely on the same apparent breaches when he elected to be bound, as the basis  for seeking cancellation of the contract- Held in the negative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                              CCA/83/2013

 

In the matter between:

 

KEL PROPERTY COMPANY (PTY) LTD                          APPLICANT

 

AND

 

PHOMOLONG INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD                         RESPONDENT

 

Monethi V Motsetsela (CCT/161/2013) [2021]LSHC 20 (17 November 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:

Contract – Payment for work done and building material – Plaintiff’s claim prescribed – Plaintiff in replication alleging that prescription interrupted by demands - Onus on the Plaintiff to prove allegations in replication – The date the cause of action prescribed is pleaded and not issuably denied – judicial admission of fact is conclusive and does not require evidence.   

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

(Commercial Court Division)

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                  CCT/161/2013

In the matter between:

 

TAU MONETHI                                                           PLAINTIFF                            

And

 

SETS’ABI MOTSETSELA                                          DEFENDANT

 

Maphaong V Minister of Education (CIV/APN/155/2020) [2021]LSHC 42 (22 April 2021);

Share
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY:                                                  

 

LAW OF CONTRACT: A contract of special assignment concluded in terms of the Public Service Regulations included a term which is contrary to Cabinet decision against payment of gratuities when it comes to an end- both parties were oblivious to this Cabinet decision, with the contract-denier becoming aware of it a month before the effluxion of contract- this being a unilateral mistake on the part of the respondents, which despite being material was negligent and therefore, not reasonable- In consequence, the court held the respondents to the contract as it was concluded.

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

 

HELD AT MASERU                                                    CIV/APN/155/2020

 

In the matter between:

 

TANKI MAPHAONG                                                  APPLICANT

 

And

 

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS            1st RESPONDENT

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY – MINISTRY

Lengoasa V Proprietor of Kay Cees Primary School (CIV/APN/18/2021) [2021]LSHC 18 (25 March 2021);

Share
Flynote: 
Search Summary: 

SUMMARY

PRIVATE LAW: Parents challenging the school’s demand for payment of school fees-Enforcement of contract being challenged on the grounds that it is unfair, unreasonable and inequitable to enforce it during the incumbency of coronavirus when teaching is proceeding remotely and virtually, and parents are participating in the teaching and are bearing the financial brunt for providing resources for such remote learning- Held, contract enforcement cannot in law be resisted on the grounds of unfairness and unreasonableness.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

                                                                                      CIV/APN/18/2021

HELD AT MASERU

 

In the matter between

 

ITUMELENG LENGOASA & 56 OTHERS               1 APPLICANT

 

AND

 

PRORIETOR OF KAY CEES PRIMARY SCHOOL 1st RESPONDENT

 

THE PRINCIPAL OF KAY CEES PRIMARY