Khasane v Khasane (CIV/APN/396/2022) [2022] LSHC 99 (22 August 2022)

Khasane v Khasane (CIV/APN/396/2022) [2022] LSHC 99 (22 August 2022)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to annex or prove the existence of the alleged nomination form, which was the foundation of the claim for the benefit of a third party. Without documentary evidence, the court could not determine the merits of the claim or grant the relief sought.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 99
Parties
1st Applicant: Matsiu Anna Khasane; 2nd Applicant: Libokanyo Josephine Khasane; 1st Respondent: Maretsepile Khasane (nee Nyakallo Bridget Mohapi); 2nd Respondent: Standard Lesotho Bank; 3rd Respondent: Office of the Master of the High Court; 4th Respondent: Estate of the Late Mosoatsi Lebohang Zakhia Khasane
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Case Number
CIV/APN/396/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stipulatio Alteri, Third Party Beneficiary, Nomination of Beneficiaries, Motion Proceedings, Evidence in Applications
Source Language
English
Contract Law Estate Law Stipulatio Alteri Third Party Beneficiary Nomination of Beneficiaries Motion Proceedings Evidence in Applications

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matsiu Anna Khasane

1st Applicant

Libokanyo Josephine Khasane

2nd Applicant

Maretsepile Khasane (nee Nyakallo Bridget Mohapi)

1st Respondent

Standard Lesotho Bank

2nd Respondent

Office of the Master of the High Court

3rd Respondent

Estate of the Late Mosoatsi Lebohang Zakhia Khasane

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant proved the existence of a contract for the benefit of a third party (stipulatio alteri) entitling the minor child to the deceased's employment benefits
  2. 2 Whether the court can grant a mandamus to the bank to pay out benefits without documentary proof of nomination

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to annex or prove the existence of the alleged nomination form, which was the foundation of the claim for the benefit of a third party. Without documentary evidence, the court could not determine the merits of the claim or grant the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application of the 2nd applicant is dismissed with costs.