Malapane v Mohale and Others (LC/APN 2013) [2015] LSHC 31 (2 March 2015)

Malapane v Mohale and Others (LC/APN 2013) [2015] LSHC 31 (2 March 2015)

The second respondent failed to attend court and prosecute her defence without justifiable reason, displaying laxity and prejudice to the applicant. The applicant is entitled to proceed with the case in terms of Rule 55(2).

Citation
[2015] LSHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Molefi Malapane; 1st Respondent: Tefo Mohale; 2nd Respondent: 'Mamohato Mohale; 3rd Respondent: Standard Lesotho Bank; 4th Respondent: FNB Bank Lesotho; 5th Respondent: Land Administration Authority
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 March 2015
Case Number
LC/APN 2013
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Ruling on Failure to Attend Court and Prosecution of Defence
Outcome
Applicant allowed to proceed with the case in absence of second respondent; no order as to costs; matter postponed to 9th March 2015.
Legal Topics
Declaratory Orders, Ejectment, Failure to Attend Court, Postponement of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaratory Orders Ejectment Failure to Attend Court Postponement of Proceedings

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefi Malapane

Applicant

Tefo Mohale

1st Respondent

'Mamohato Mohale

2nd Respondent

Standard Lesotho Bank

3rd Respondent

FNB Bank Lesotho

4th Respondent

Land Administration Authority

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Ruling on Failure to Attend Court and Prosecution of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent failed to prosecute her defence
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to proceed in absence of the second respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent failed to attend court and prosecute her defence without justifiable reason, displaying laxity and prejudice to the applicant. The applicant is entitled to proceed with the case in terms of Rule 55(2).

Court Disposition

Applicant allowed to proceed with the case in absence of second respondent; no order as to costs; matter postponed to 9th March 2015.

Orders

  • Applicant at liberty to proceed in terms of Rule 55(2)
  • No order as to costs