Puling v Mahamo and Others (CIV/APN 74 of 9) [2012] LSHC 81 (13 December 2012)

Puling v Mahamo and Others (CIV/APN 74 of 9) [2012] LSHC 81 (13 December 2012)

The applicant failed to provide a convincing explanation for his default and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or prospects of success. The mere withdrawal of his attorneys and his unfamiliarity with procedure were insufficient grounds for rescission. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2012] LSHC 81
Parties
Applicant: Lebohang Puling; 1st Respondent: Selloane Mahamo; 2nd Respondent: Commissioner of Lands; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Case Number
CIV/APN 74 of 9
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Bona Fide Defence, Ministerial Consent in Land Transactions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Bona Fide Defence Ministerial Consent in Land Transactions

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 2 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebohang Puling

Applicant

Selloane Mahamo

1st Respondent

Commissioner of Lands

2nd Respondent

Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a convincing explanation for default
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a bona fide defence and prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether lack of ministerial consent rendered the sale agreement a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a convincing explanation for his default and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or prospects of success. The mere withdrawal of his attorneys and his unfamiliarity with procedure were insufficient grounds for rescission. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for rescission is dismissed with costs.