Nkhahle v Ovk Operations Ltd (CCT/0416/17) [2022] LSHC 112 (19 August 2022)

Nkhahle v Ovk Operations Ltd (CCT/0416/17) [2022] LSHC 112 (19 August 2022)

The applicant was properly served with summons, as evidenced by the return of service, confirmatory affidavit of the Deputy Sheriff, and admission by his former counsel. None of the grounds advanced by the applicant constitute an error envisaged under rule 45(1)(a). The failure to discount M15,000.00 already paid was not an error of law or fact justifying rescission, and the respondent has abandoned this amount. The summons, read with annexures, sufficiently disclosed contract particulars. The applicant was in wilful default and is not entitled to rescission.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 112
Parties
Applicant: Lesia Nkhahle; 1st Respondent: OVK Operations Ltd; 2nd Respondent: The Deputy Sheriff (Mr. V Masenyetse)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Case Number
CCT/0416/17
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment on Opposed Rescission Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs at the ordinary scale.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Acknowledgment of Debt
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Process Acknowledgment of Debt

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesia Nkhahle

Applicant

OVK Operations Ltd

1st Respondent

The Deputy Sheriff (Mr. V Masenyetse)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment on Opposed Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant under rule 45(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether proper service of summons was effected
  3. 3 Whether failure to discount M15,000.00 already paid constituted an error justifying rescission

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was properly served with summons, as evidenced by the return of service, confirmatory affidavit of the Deputy Sheriff, and admission by his former counsel. None of the grounds advanced by the applicant constitute an error envisaged under rule 45(1)(a). The failure to discount M15,000.00 already paid was not an error of law or fact justifying rescission, and the respondent has abandoned this amount. The summons, read with annexures, sufficiently disclosed contract particulars. The applicant was in wilful default and is not entitled to rescission.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs at the ordinary scale.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay costs at the ordinary scale.