Lepule v Lepule (CIV/APN 193 of 13) [2013] LSHC 81 (6 August 2013)

Lepule v Lepule (CIV/APN 193 of 13) [2013] LSHC 81 (6 August 2013)

The applicant is the lawful heir to the estate by virtue of the Court of Appeal decision and the operation of the Land Act 1979; the respondents' continued occupation and refusal to restore possession is unlawful. The High Court, even when sitting as a Constitutional Court, lacks jurisdiction to declare the Court of Appeal decision unconstitutional. The requirements for a stay of execution or interim interdict are not met by the respondents.

Citation
[2013] LSHC 81
Parties
Applicant: Manthabiseng Lepule; 1st Respondent: Teboho Lepule; 2nd Respondent: Maretsepile Lepule; 3rd Respondent: Makhauta Mokhitli
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
6 August 2013
Case Number
CIV/APN 193 of 13
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; vindicatory order issued; eviction and costs orders held in abeyance for three months to allow for settlement.
Legal Topics
Heirship, Estate Administration, Vindication, Eviction, Customary Vs Statutory Succession, Jurisdiction, Restorative Justice
Source Language
English
Succession Law Customary Law Constitutional Law Property Law Heirship Estate Administration Vindication Eviction +3 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manthabiseng Lepule

Applicant

Teboho Lepule

1st Respondent

Maretsepile Lepule

2nd Respondent

Makhauta Mokhitli

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to vindicatory and eviction orders against the respondents regarding the estate of the late Thomas Lepule.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court, sitting as a Constitutional Court, has jurisdiction to declare a Court of Appeal decision unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are justified in refusing to comply with the Court of Appeal decision on constitutional grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the lawful heir to the estate by virtue of the Court of Appeal decision and the operation of the Land Act 1979; the respondents' continued occupation and refusal to restore possession is unlawful. The High Court, even when sitting as a Constitutional Court, lacks jurisdiction to declare the Court of Appeal decision unconstitutional. The requirements for a stay of execution or interim interdict are not met by the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; vindicatory order issued; eviction and costs orders held in abeyance for three months to allow for settlement.

Orders

  • Respondents to restore possession and ownership of the estate properties to the applicant forthwith.
  • Eviction and costs orders deferred for three months to enable parties to negotiate a settlement.