Kelebone Selemo V Khethisa Molapo & 4 Others (C of A (CIV) 38/2023) [2025] LSCA 17 (2 May 2025)

Kelebone Selemo V Khethisa Molapo & 4 Others (C of A (CIV) 38/2023) [2025] LSCA 17 (2 May 2025)

The appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to file an answer within 14 days under Rule 18(2) of the District Land Court Rules, did not provide a reasonable explanation for his default, and did not disclose a bona fide defence. The requirements for rescission were not met, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] LSCA 17
Parties
Appellant: Kelebone Selomo; 1st Respondent: Khethisa Molapo; 2nd Respondent: Majoel Adelina Molapo; 3rd Respondent: Butha-Buthe Urban Council; 4th Respondent: Clerk of Court Butha-Buthe Magistrate; 5th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 May 2025
Case Number
C of A (CIV) 38/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Audi Alteram Partem, District Land Court Rules, Bona Fide Defence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Rescission of Default Judgment Audi Alteram Partem District Land Court Rules Bona Fide Defence

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelebone Selomo

Appellant

Khethisa Molapo

1st Respondent

Majoel Adelina Molapo

2nd Respondent

Butha-Buthe Urban Council

3rd Respondent

Clerk of Court Butha-Buthe Magistrate

4th Respondent

Attorney General

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was afforded an opportunity to be heard before default judgment was entered
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with Rule 18(2) of the District Land Court Rules justified rescission
  3. 3 Whether the appellant disclosed a bona fide defence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to file an answer within 14 days under Rule 18(2) of the District Land Court Rules, did not provide a reasonable explanation for his default, and did not disclose a bona fide defence. The requirements for rescission were not met, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to follow the event.