Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1997] LSHC 6 (3 February 1997)

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1997] LSHC 6 (3 February 1997)

The defendant failed to discharge the onus of showing that further relevant documents exist or are in the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff's discovery affidavit is conclusive, and the defendant's application for further discovery is dismissed as misconceived and unsupported by evidence of relevance.

Citation
[1997] LSHC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority; Defendant: Masupha Ephraim Sole
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 February 1997
Case Number
CIV/T 598 of 95
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Further Discovery
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Affidavit of Discovery, Relevance of Documents, High Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Discovery Affidavit of Discovery Relevance of Documents High Court Rules

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

Plaintiff

Masupha Ephraim Sole

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Further Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to further discovery of documents from the plaintiff under Rule 34(3), (6), and (8) of the High Court Rules 1980.
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the matters in question in the action.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has discharged the onus to show that further documents exist and are relevant.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to discharge the onus of showing that further relevant documents exist or are in the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff's discovery affidavit is conclusive, and the defendant's application for further discovery is dismissed as misconceived and unsupported by evidence of relevance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's application for further discovery is dismissed.
  • The defendant is to pay the costs of the application.