Lebohang Sethathi V Morapeli Borotho & 4 Others (C of A (CIV) No 26/2023 C of A (CIV/REV) No 1/2025) [2025] LSCA 46 (15 October 2025)

Lebohang Sethathi V Morapeli Borotho & 4 Others (C of A (CIV) No 26/2023 C of A (CIV/REV) No 1/2025) [2025] LSCA 46 (15 October 2025)

The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances such as a patent error or gross injustice in the prior judgment, and advanced a new cause of action not pleaded in the lower courts. The application was unmeritorious and the conduct of counsel warranted costs de bonis propriis on attorney-and-client scale.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] LSCA 46
Parties
Applicant: Lebohang Sethathi; 1st Respondent: Morapeli Borotho; 2nd Respondent: ‘Mampoi Majara; 3rd Respondent: Kanana Community Council Land Administration Authority; 4th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Case Number
C of A (CIV) No 26/2023 C of A (CIV/REV) No 1/2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Review / Application for Review of Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Judgments, Inherent Jurisdiction, Compensation for Improvements, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Condonation
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Judgments Inherent Jurisdiction Compensation for Improvements Costs De Bonis Propriis Condonation

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebohang Sethathi

Applicant

Morapeli Borotho

1st Respondent

‘Mampoi Majara

2nd Respondent

Kanana Community Council Land Administration Authority

3rd Respondent

The Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Review / Application for Review of Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should review and set aside its own prior judgment under its inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for improvements made on disputed land when such claim was not raised in lower courts
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of heads of argument should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances such as a patent error or gross injustice in the prior judgment, and advanced a new cause of action not pleaded in the lower courts. The application was unmeritorious and the conduct of counsel warranted costs de bonis propriis on attorney-and-client scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed
  • Application for condonation dismissed