Boliba-Multi Purpose Cooperative Society v Sejanamane (CCT 85 of 2009) [2010] LSHC 10 (25 June 2010)

Boliba-Multi Purpose Cooperative Society v Sejanamane (CCT 85 of 2009) [2010] LSHC 10 (25 June 2010)

The defendant failed to demonstrate either a procedural irregularity or a bona fide defence, and the application was improperly brought ex parte and as a matter of urgency.

Citation
[2010] LSHC 10
Parties
Plaintiff: Boliba-Multi Purpose Cooperative Society; Defendant: Professor Mafa Sejanamane
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Case Number
CCT 85 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Rescission of Judgment, Loan Agreement, Urgent Applications, Ex Parte Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Default Judgment Rescission of Judgment Loan Agreement Urgent Applications Ex Parte Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boliba-Multi Purpose Cooperative Society

Plaintiff

Professor Mafa Sejanamane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urgent ex parte application to set aside default judgment was properly brought
  2. 2 Whether the defendant demonstrated a procedural irregularity or a bona fide defence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate either a procedural irregularity or a bona fide defence, and the application was improperly brought ex parte and as a matter of urgency.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Rule nisi granted ex parte on 16 March 2010 is discharged.
  • Plaintiff is entitled to its costs to be taxed if not agreed.