Dr. Mohale Phehlane V The Prime Minister, Hon. Sam Matekane &3 Others (CIV/APN/0384/2023) [2024] LSHC 8 (22 March 2024)

Dr. Mohale Phehlane V The Prime Minister, Hon. Sam Matekane &3 Others (CIV/APN/0384/2023) [2024] LSHC 8 (22 March 2024)

The court found that both parties failed to strictly comply with procedural rules, but no substantial prejudice would result from condoning the irregularities. The interests of justice required the matter to be heard on its merits rather than disposed of on technicalities. Default judgment was not appropriate, and the respondents were granted leave to file their answering affidavit.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 8
Parties
Applicant: Dr Mohale Phehlane; 1st Respondent: The Prime Minister of Lesotho - Hon. Sam Matekane; 2nd Respondent: Nthoateng Lebona; 3rd Respondent: Public Service Commission; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Case Number
CIV/APN/0384/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory (default Judgment Request)
Outcome
Request for default judgment dismissed; condonation granted for late filing; costs awarded against 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Condonation of Irregularities, Appointment to Public Office, Review Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Default Judgment Condonation of Irregularities Appointment to Public Office Review Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Mohale Phehlane

Applicant

The Prime Minister of Lesotho - Hon. Sam Matekane

1st Respondent

Nthoateng Lebona

2nd Respondent

Public Service Commission

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory (default Judgment Request)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be granted due to respondents' failure to file intention to oppose and answering affidavit
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with court rules should be condoned
  3. 3 Whether applicant followed proper procedure under Rule 8(13)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties failed to strictly comply with procedural rules, but no substantial prejudice would result from condoning the irregularities. The interests of justice required the matter to be heard on its merits rather than disposed of on technicalities. Default judgment was not appropriate, and the respondents were granted leave to file their answering affidavit.

Court Disposition

Request for default judgment dismissed; condonation granted for late filing; costs awarded against 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents.

Orders

  • Request for default judgment is dismissed.
  • 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents to file answering affidavit within five days of receipt of order.