Masheane v Moramotse (CIV/A 9 of 89) [1996] LSHC 20 (6 February 1996)

Masheane v Moramotse (CIV/A 9 of 89) [1996] LSHC 20 (6 February 1996)

The evidence established that the site was allocated to the plaintiff, not the defendant, and section 82 of the Land Act, 1979 did not apply as there was no double allocation. The trial court erred in rejecting D.W.1's evidence as inadmissible, but the overall finding that the plaintiff was the rightful owner was correct. The Judicial Commissioner was correct to order that the dispute over building materials be determined separately.

Citation
[1996] LSHC 20
Parties
Appellant: Mohlokinyane Masheane; Respondent: Samuel Moramotse
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
6 February 1996
Case Number
CIV/A 9 of 89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Allocation of Land, Title to Land, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Allocation of Land Title to Land Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohlokinyane Masheane

Appellant

Samuel Moramotse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the site in dispute was lawfully allocated to the plaintiff or defendant
  2. 2 Whether section 82 of the Land Act, 1979 applied to the facts
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in admitting or rejecting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that the site was allocated to the plaintiff, not the defendant, and section 82 of the Land Act, 1979 did not apply as there was no double allocation. The trial court erred in rejecting D.W.1's evidence as inadmissible, but the overall finding that the plaintiff was the rightful owner was correct. The Judicial Commissioner was correct to order that the dispute over building materials be determined separately.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Building materials to be disputed separately by claimants in a separate proceeding