Jobo v Letshego Holdings (CCA/0068/2021) [2022] LSHC 46 (9 June 2022)

Jobo v Letshego Holdings (CCA/0068/2021) [2022] LSHC 46 (9 June 2022)

The interim interdict was only intended to operate until the Central Bank (8th respondent) completed its investigation and issued its report. The applicants failed to make out a prima facie case for continued operation of the interdict pending appeal, especially as the Tribunal has not been appointed and the findings of the 8th respondent do not justify further suspension of deductions. To extend the interdict would unduly prejudice the respondents, who are entitled to recover their loans.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Moeketsi Jobo & 25 Others; 1st Respondent: Letshego Holdings (Pty) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Lesana Financial Services (Pty) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Platinum Credit Lesotho (Pty) Ltd; 4th Respondent: Netloans (Pty) Ltd; 5th Respondent: Alimela Thuto Financial Ltd; 6th Respondent: Accountant General; 7th Respondent: National Treasury; 8th Respondent: Commissioner (Central Bank of Lesotho); 9th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
9 June 2022
Case Number
CCA/0068/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Extension/discharge of Interim Interdict (rule Nisi)
Outcome
Rule nisi (interim interdict) discharged with costs.
Legal Topics
Interim Interdicts, Interpretation of Court Orders, Micro Lending Regulation, Appeals and Tribunals, Debt Recovery
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Administrative Law Interim Interdicts Interpretation of Court Orders Micro Lending Regulation Appeals and Tribunals Debt Recovery

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moeketsi Jobo & 25 Others

Applicant

Letshego Holdings (Pty) Ltd

1st Respondent

Lesana Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Platinum Credit Lesotho (Pty) Ltd

3rd Respondent

Netloans (Pty) Ltd

4th Respondent

Alimela Thuto Financial Ltd

5th Respondent

Accountant General

6th Respondent

National Treasury

7th Respondent

Commissioner (Central Bank of Lesotho)

8th Respondent

Attorney General

9th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Extension/discharge of Interim Interdict (rule Nisi)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim interdict (rule nisi) restraining salary deductions should be extended pending appeal to a Tribunal that is yet to be appointed
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of the original court order regarding the duration of the interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The interim interdict was only intended to operate until the Central Bank (8th respondent) completed its investigation and issued its report. The applicants failed to make out a prima facie case for continued operation of the interdict pending appeal, especially as the Tribunal has not been appointed and the findings of the 8th respondent do not justify further suspension of deductions. To extend the interdict would unduly prejudice the respondents, who are entitled to recover their loans.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi (interim interdict) discharged with costs.

Orders

  • The rule is discharged with costs.