Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1997] LSHC 58 (3 August 1997)

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Sole (CIV/T 598 of 95) [1997] LSHC 58 (3 August 1997)

The defendant failed to show on a balance of probabilities that the documents sought were relevant to the matters in question. The plaintiff's discovery affidavit was conclusive, and the defendant's application was a fishing expedition unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the application was procedurally defective as it was not brought under Rule 34(9), which provides the appropriate remedy for failure to give discovery or inspection.

Citation
[1997] LSHC 58
Parties
Plaintiff: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority; Defendant: Masupha Ephraim Sole
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 August 1997
Case Number
CIV/T 598 of 95
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Further Discovery
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Discovery, Affidavit, Relevance of Documents
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Discovery Affidavit Relevance of Documents

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 / Ruling on 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

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to show on a balance of probabilities that the documents sought were relevant to the matters in question. The plaintiff's discovery affidavit was conclusive, and the defendant's application was a fishing expedition unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the application was procedurally defective as it was not brought under Rule 34(9), which provides the appropriate remedy for failure to give discovery or inspection.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for further discovery is dismissed with costs.