Foloko v LADB and Others (CIV/APNS 142) [1996] LSHC 39 (12 March 1996)

Foloko v LADB and Others (CIV/APNS 142) [1996] LSHC 39 (12 March 1996)

The points in limine raised by respondents regarding non-disclosure, urgency, and dispute of fact were dismissed as they were either premature, ill-conceived, or not supported by the facts on record.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] LSHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Mathetso Foloko; Applicant: Solomon Lethoba; Applicant: Charles Mahasa; Applicant: Thabo Tlalinyane; Respondents: L.A.D.B. and Others
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
12 March 1996
Case Number
CIV/APNS 142
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Points in Limine
Outcome
Points in limine dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Urgency, Dispute of Fact, Points in Limine
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Non Disclosure Urgency Dispute of Fact Points in Limine

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathetso Foloko

Applicant

Solomon Lethoba

Applicant

Charles Mahasa

Applicant

Thabo Tlalinyane

Applicant

L.A.D.B. and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure by applicants
  2. 2 Whether urgency was properly established
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine dispute of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The points in limine raised by respondents regarding non-disclosure, urgency, and dispute of fact were dismissed as they were either premature, ill-conceived, or not supported by the facts on record.

Court Disposition

Points in limine dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Points in limine on non-disclosure, urgency, and dispute of fact are dismissed.
  • Costs are reserved pending argument on the merits.