Mohapi v Sello and Others (CIV/APN 313 of 2010) [2014] LSHC 78 (3 December 2014)

Mohapi v Sello and Others (CIV/APN 313 of 2010) [2014] LSHC 78 (3 December 2014)

The court found the applicant was served with the notice of motion based on the Deputy Sheriff’s return of service and testimony, and the applicant’s evidence was unreliable and evasive. Therefore, condonation for late filing of the rescission application was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] LSHC 78
Parties
Applicant: Mohapi Mark Mohapi; 1st Respondent: 'Machabeli Sello; 2nd Respondent: Land Administration Authority; 3rd Respondent: Land Registrar; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Case Number
CIV/APN 313 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment on Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for condonation refused
Legal Topics
Condonation, Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process, Default Judgment
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land Law Condonation Rescission of Judgment Service of Process Default Judgment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohapi Mark Mohapi

Applicant

'Machabeli Sello

1st Respondent

Land Administration Authority

2nd Respondent

Land Registrar

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment on Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was served with the notice of motion in the original application
  2. 2 Whether condonation for late filing of rescission application should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicant was served with the notice of motion based on the Deputy Sheriff’s return of service and testimony, and the applicant’s evidence was unreliable and evasive. Therefore, condonation for late filing of the rescission application was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused

Orders

  • Costs awarded to the First Respondent