Mokulubete v Matsoso (CIV/A 32 of 11) [2017] LSHC 5 (10 March 2017)

Mokulubete v Matsoso (CIV/A 32 of 11) [2017] LSHC 5 (10 March 2017)

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent was maliciously denied documentation by the person responsible, the magistrate did not err in granting ejectment, and the issue of invalid allocation under the Land Act 1979 was not properly raised at trial and cannot be considered on appeal.

Citation
[2017] LSHC 5
Parties
Appellant: Mabokang Mokulubete; Respondent: Ntsane Matsoso
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Case Number
CIV/A 32 of 11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Ownership of Land, Allocation of Land, Compensation for Improvements, Pleadings and Procedure
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Ejectment Ownership of Land Allocation of Land Compensation for Improvements Pleadings and Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabokang Mokulubete

Appellant

Ntsane Matsoso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved ownership of plot 22608 without documentation
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred by not considering improvements made by the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the allocation or transfer of the plot was valid under the Land Act 1979

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent was maliciously denied documentation by the person responsible, the magistrate did not err in granting ejectment, and the issue of invalid allocation under the Land Act 1979 was not properly raised at trial and cannot be considered on appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent.