Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1997] LSHC 35 (1 April 1997)

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1997] LSHC 35 (1 April 1997)

Once the trial had commenced, it was irregular for the defendant to file a discovery notice under Rule 34(6) instead of Rule 34(14). Filing multiple discovery notices after trial commencement constitutes an abuse of process and causes unnecessary delay. The court's rules are intended to expedite litigation, not to allow piecemeal or repetitive applications.

Citation
[1997] LSHC 35
Parties
Plaintiff: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority; Defendant: Masupha Ephraim Sole
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
1 April 1997
Case Number
CIV/T 598 of 95
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Rule 30 Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's application granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Abuse of Process, Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Discovery Abuse of Process 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

Plaintiff

Masupha Ephraim Sole

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Rule 30 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's notice in terms of Rule 34(6) dated 12 November 1996 was an irregular step under Rule 30(1)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant abused the process of court by filing multiple discovery notices after trial commencement

Ratio Decidendi

Once the trial had commenced, it was irregular for the defendant to file a discovery notice under Rule 34(6) instead of Rule 34(14). Filing multiple discovery notices after trial commencement constitutes an abuse of process and causes unnecessary delay. The court's rules are intended to expedite litigation, not to allow piecemeal or repetitive applications.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Defendant's notice in terms of Rule 34(6) dated 12 November 1996 set aside as an irregular step under Rule 30(1).
  • Defendant to pay costs of the application, including costs of two counsel.