JERINAH GOOLAM ESSANEY V ABRAHAM JOSEPH & 6 Others (C of A (CIV) 12/2025) [2025] LSCA 11 (2 May 2025)

JERINAH GOOLAM ESSANEY V ABRAHAM JOSEPH & 6 Others (C of A (CIV) 12/2025) [2025] LSCA 11 (2 May 2025)

Appellant's conduct and resulting waste of respondents' resources warranted a punitive costs order, but absence of contempt or authority for highest scale meant costs were awarded on attorney and client scale, not attorney and own client scale.

Citation
[2025] LSCA 11
Parties
Appellant: Jerinah Goolam Essaney; 1st Respondent: Abraham Joseph; 2nd Respondent: Esmah Essaney; 3rd Respondent: Nordeen Lovis Goolam; 4th Respondent: Brey Sempe Goolam; 5th Respondent: Maseru City Council; 6th Respondent: Land Administration Authority; 7th Respondent: Chief of Mapeleng Ha Mabote
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 May 2025
Case Number
C of A (CIV) 12/2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Condonation and Striking Off Appeal
Outcome
appeal struck off the roll with costs on attorney and client scale
Legal Topics
Costs, Condonation, Appeal Procedure, Punitive Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Condonation Appeal Procedure Punitive Costs

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerinah Goolam Essaney

Appellant

Abraham Joseph

1st Respondent

Esmah Essaney

2nd Respondent

Nordeen Lovis Goolam

3rd Respondent

Brey Sempe Goolam

4th Respondent

Maseru City Council

5th Respondent

Land Administration Authority

6th Respondent

Chief of Mapeleng Ha Mabote

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Condonation and Striking Off Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate scale of costs after late withdrawal of appeal and condonation application
  2. 2 Whether punitive costs on attorney and own client scale are justified

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant's conduct and resulting waste of respondents' resources warranted a punitive costs order, but absence of contempt or authority for highest scale meant costs were awarded on attorney and client scale, not attorney and own client scale.

Court Disposition

appeal struck off the roll with costs on attorney and client scale

Orders

  • Appeal is struck off the roll.
  • Appellant to pay costs on the scale of attorney and client.