Monyake v Monyake (CIV/A/ 15 of 79) [1980] LSHC 42 (8 July 1980)

Monyake v Monyake (CIV/A/ 15 of 79) [1980] LSHC 42 (8 July 1980)

The evidence did not establish that the kraals were part of the homestead granted to the appellant; the late Chief continued to use the kraals, indicating no intention to transfer them. The respondent's self-help was deprecated, but the appellant failed to prove entitlement to the kraals.

Citation
[1980] LSHC 42
Parties
Appellant: 'Matsa Monyake; Respondent: Lengolo Monyake
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
8 July 1980
Case Number
CIV/A/ 15 of 79
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Judicial Commissioner
Outcome
appeal dismissed with amendment
Legal Topics
Succession, Land Ownership, Spoliation, Customary Inheritance
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Succession Land Ownership Spoliation Customary Inheritance

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

'Matsa Monyake

Appellant

Lengolo Monyake

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Judicial Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the kraals formed part of the homestead granted to the appellant by the late Chief Lengolo
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to the area in front of the forecourt
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was justified in dispossessing the appellant of the kraals

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the kraals were part of the homestead granted to the appellant; the late Chief continued to use the kraals, indicating no intention to transfer them. The respondent's self-help was deprecated, but the appellant failed to prove entitlement to the kraals.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with amendment

Orders

  • Appellant's action to recover the kraals is dismissed.
  • Respondent shall rescind his order barring the appellant from ploughing before the forecourt, without prejudice to lawful action.