Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd v Khoete (CCA/0022/2017) [2023] LSHC 4 (7 March 2023)

Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd v Khoete (CCA/0022/2017) [2023] LSHC 4 (7 March 2023)

Contempt was proven against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th Respondents. 1st Respondent was party to and aware of the order; 2nd and 3rd Respondents acted under his authority by entering into sublease agreements in violation of the order. 7th Respondent was notified but did not comply. No evidence against 4th to 6th Respondents. Misjoinder, lis pendens, and non-joinder arguments failed. Dispute of fact was not material to the contempt issue.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd; 1st Respondent: Metsing Jeremiah Khoete; 2nd Respondent: Mahlaha Moejane M, Gerard; 3rd Respondent: Motea Phala Caston Thaanyane; 4th Respondent: Motebele Peter Mabathoana; 5th Respondent: Calrk Mafitoe; 6th Respondent: Kutlo Morojele; 7th Respondent: Yu Quang; 8th Respondent: Bafang (Pty) Ltd; 9th Respondent: The Commissioner of Police; 10th Respondent: The Commanding Officer, Roma Police Station; 11th Respondent: The Registrar of Companies; 12th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
7 March 2023
Case Number
CCA/0022/2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment After Hearing on Contempt and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Contempt application partially granted; partially dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interdicts, Agency, Joinder and Non Joinder, Lis Pendens
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Contempt of Court Interdicts Agency Joinder and Non Joinder Lis Pendens

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Metsing Jeremiah Khoete

1st Respondent

Mahlaha Moejane M, Gerard

2nd Respondent

Motea Phala Caston Thaanyane

3rd Respondent

Motebele Peter Mabathoana

4th Respondent

Calrk Mafitoe

5th Respondent

Kutlo Morojele

6th Respondent

Yu Quang

7th Respondent

Bafang (Pty) Ltd

8th Respondent

The Commissioner of Police

9th Respondent

The Commanding Officer, Roma Police Station

10th Respondent

The Registrar of Companies

11th Respondent

The Attorney General

12th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment After Hearing on Contempt and Related Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 1st to 7th Respondents are in contempt of the interim court order issued on 27 March 2017
  2. 2 Whether there is misjoinder of parties
  3. 3 Whether lis pendens applies

Ratio Decidendi

Contempt was proven against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th Respondents. 1st Respondent was party to and aware of the order; 2nd and 3rd Respondents acted under his authority by entering into sublease agreements in violation of the order. 7th Respondent was notified but did not comply. No evidence against 4th to 6th Respondents. Misjoinder, lis pendens, and non-joinder arguments failed. Dispute of fact was not material to the contempt issue.

Court Disposition

Contempt application partially granted; partially dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed against 4th to 6th Respondents.
  • 7th Respondent held in contempt; ordered to report and pay all rentals not paid to Applicant since taking occupancy.