Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd v Monethi (CCT/0034/2022) [2022] LSHC 33 (1 June 2022)

Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd v Monethi (CCT/0034/2022) [2022] LSHC 33 (1 June 2022)

Applicant established a clear right as landlord to collect rent; 1st respondent failed to show authority to act for applicant; evidence showed 1st respondent demanded rent from tenants, infringing applicant's right; no alternative remedy available. All requirements for a final interdict met. Letters by 1st...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 33
Parties
Applicant: Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd; 1st Respondent: Moeketsi Monethi; 2nd Respondent: Wen Hui Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Diengoane Hlalale
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
1 June 2022
Case Number
CCT/0034/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Division) / Judgment After Unopposed Motion; Application for Postponement Denied; Final Orders Issued
Outcome
Application granted as prayed in Part B; postponement denied; costs awarded against 1st respondent.
Legal Topics
Interdicts, Declaratory Orders, Landlord and Tenant, Company Administration
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Interdicts Declaratory Orders Landlord and Tenant Company Administration

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Moeketsi Monethi

1st Respondent

Wen Hui Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Diengoane Hlalale

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Division) / Judgment After Unopposed Motion; Application for Postponement Denied; Final Orders Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining the 1st respondent from holding himself out as director/agent of the applicant and collecting rent
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be restrained from paying rent to any party other than the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents should account for and repay amounts received from the applicant's property

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant established a clear right as landlord to collect rent; 1st respondent failed to show authority to act for applicant; evidence showed 1st respondent demanded rent from tenants, infringing applicant's right; no alternative remedy available. All requirements for a final interdict met. Letters by 1st respondent declared null and void.

Court Disposition

Application granted as prayed in Part B; postponement denied; costs awarded against 1st respondent.

Orders

  • 1st and 2nd respondents to account and report for all amounts received from or in respect of applicant's complex within 7 days of service of order.
  • 1st respondent to repay M99,000.00 to applicant for rentals received for December 2021, January 2022, and February 2022.