Lesotho Nation Group Insurance v Matlosa and Another (CIV/T 358 of 91) [2000] LSCA 109 (24 November 2000)
Ownership of the vehicle had effectively transferred to the second defendant prior to the accident, making the second defendant liable for the sums claimed by the plaintiff.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] LSCA 109
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lesotho Nation Group Insurance; 1st Defendant: Mrs Meriam Matlosa; 2nd Defendant: Mr Hlompho Ramothamo
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- CIV/T 358 of 91
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Ownership, Agency, Liability for Insured Events
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lesotho Nation Group Insurance
Plaintiff
Mrs Meriam Matlosa
1st Defendant
Mr Hlompho Ramothamo
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether ownership of the vehicle had transferred before the accident
- 2 Whether the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff for sums claimed
Ratio Decidendi
Ownership of the vehicle had effectively transferred to the second defendant prior to the accident, making the second defendant liable for the sums claimed by the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Second defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the sums set out in the summons and as prayed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 CIV/T/358/91 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter of: LESOTHO NATION GROUP INSURANCE Plaintiff vs M RS MERIAM MATLOSA 1st Defendant MR H L O M P HO R A M O T H A MO 2nd Defendant J U D G M E NT Delivered by Hon, Mr Justice M. L. Lehohla on the 24th day of November The first defendant prepared transfer of ownership forms on the 23rd of October 1986, the accident occurred on the 7th of March, 1987 and ratification by the second defendant, through defendant's wife, who in this respect would be taken to have been acting as agent of the second defendant in view of the fact that the agreement to sell the vehicle was between the first and second defendants, and this is not denied. Then the ratification was on the 13th of November, 1987 giving effect to what occurred on the 23rd of October, 1986 and in this event it would appear in my view that when the accident occurred on the 7th of March 1987 change of ownership had effectively been made prior to this date. On this basis therefore I find that the second defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the sums set out in the summons and as prayed. J U D GE 24th November, 2000 For Plaintiff : Mr Grundlingh For Defendant: Mr Nathane