Rangope v Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd (CIV/APN 382 of 95) [1997] LSHC 77 (22 September 1997)

Rangope v Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd (CIV/APN 382 of 95) [1997] LSHC 77 (22 September 1997)

The applicant, having taken further steps after knowledge of the alleged irregularity, was barred from objecting under Rule 30. Furthermore, an affidavit was not required for the respondent's Rule 32(7) application as the facts were common cause and already before the court.

Citation
[1997] LSHC 77
Parties
Applicant: Bulara Rangope; Respondent: Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
22 September 1997
Case Number
CIV/APN 382 of 95
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (rule 30 Objection to Rule 32(7) Application)
Outcome
Application by applicant under Rule 30 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Irregular Proceedings, Interlocutory Applications, Affidavit Requirements, Condonation of Irregularity
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Irregular Proceedings Interlocutory Applications Affidavit Requirements Condonation of Irregularity

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bulara Rangope

Applicant

Security Lesotho (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (rule 30 Objection to Rule 32(7) Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's application under Rule 32(7) was irregular or improper under Rule 30
  2. 2 Whether an affidavit was required to support the respondent's application under Rule 32(7)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was barred from objecting due to condonation by subsequent steps

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, having taken further steps after knowledge of the alleged irregularity, was barred from objecting under Rule 30. Furthermore, an affidavit was not required for the respondent's Rule 32(7) application as the facts were common cause and already before the court.

Court Disposition

Application by applicant under Rule 30 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application in terms of Rule 30 by Bulara Rangope is dismissed with costs.