Koenyama and Another v Lebaka and Others (CIV/APN 437 of 2011) [2012] LSHC 9 (26 March 2012)

Koenyama and Another v Lebaka and Others (CIV/APN 437 of 2011) [2012] LSHC 9 (26 March 2012)

The application for review was dismissed because there was no procedural irregularity; the magistrate's decision to grant default judgment for failure to file appearance to defend was procedurally correct, and the proper remedy was appeal, not review.

Citation
[2012] LSHC 9
Parties
Applicant: ‘Malebohang Koenyama; Applicant: Tlale Koenyama; Respondent: Makhale Lebaka; Respondent: Her Worship the Magistrate Mrs M. G. Mokhoro; Respondent: The Clerk of Court; Respondent: The Messenger of Court; Respondent: The Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 March 2012
Case Number
CIV/APN 437 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Rescission of Judgment, Review Vs Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Rescission of Judgment Review Vs Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

‘Malebohang Koenyama

Applicant

Tlale Koenyama

Applicant

Makhale Lebaka

Respondent

Her Worship the Magistrate Mrs M. G. Mokhoro

Respondent

The Clerk of Court

Respondent

The Messenger of Court

Respondent

The Attorney-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's refusal to rescind default judgment for failure to file appearance to defend was proper
  2. 2 Whether the matter should proceed by review or appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because there was no procedural irregularity; the magistrate's decision to grant default judgment for failure to file appearance to defend was procedurally correct, and the proper remedy was appeal, not review.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed
  • Applicants to pay costs