Lehana Mandoro v Libe Mohono (CIV/A 26 of 14) [2017] LSHC 8 (4 May 2017)

Lehana Mandoro v Libe Mohono (CIV/A 26 of 14) [2017] LSHC 8 (4 May 2017)

The appellant failed to establish that he was not in wilful default and did not disclose the nature of his defence. The requirements for rescission were not satisfied, and the court a quo was correct in refusing the application.

Citation
[2017] LSHC 8
Parties
Appellant: Lehana Mandoro; Respondent: Libe Mohono
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
4 May 2017
Case Number
CIV/A 26 of 14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Rescission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Appeals
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Appeals

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lehana Mandoro

Appellant

Libe Mohono

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant satisfied the requirements for rescission of default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was in wilful default
  3. 3 Whether the appellant disclosed a bona fide defence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish that he was not in wilful default and did not disclose the nature of his defence. The requirements for rescission were not satisfied, and the court a quo was correct in refusing the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.