Motaung v Osman (CIV/APN 10 of 84) [1986] LSCA 2 (17 February 1986)

Motaung v Osman (CIV/APN 10 of 84) [1986] LSCA 2 (17 February 1986)

The court held that the alleged verbal agreement to cancel the deed of sale was invalid as it was not in writing and signed by both parties, as required by the contract. The compromise regarding monthly rental was never formalized by amendment to the contract. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the reliefs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1986] LSCA 2
Parties
Applicant: James Motlaletsi Motaung; Respondent: Mahomed Osman
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Case Number
CIV/APN 10 of 84
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Suspensive Conditions, Contract Cancellation, Specific Performance, Interim Interdicts
Source Language
en
Contract Law Property Law Suspensive Conditions Contract Cancellation Specific Performance Interim Interdicts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Motlaletsi Motaung

Applicant

Mahomed Osman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether a verbal agreement to cancel a written deed of sale is valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable to pay monthly rental pending ministerial consent
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict and related reliefs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the alleged verbal agreement to cancel the deed of sale was invalid as it was not in writing and signed by both parties, as required by the contract. The compromise regarding monthly rental was never formalized by amendment to the contract. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the reliefs sought, and the rule nisi was discharged with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Rule nisi discharged with costs to the respondent