Mosito Ramahloko t/a Tip Top Guest House V NedBank Lesotho Limited & 3 Others (CC /0022/2023) [2024] LSHC 139 (19 August 2024)

Mosito Ramahloko t/a Tip Top Guest House V NedBank Lesotho Limited & 3 Others (CC /0022/2023) [2024] LSHC 139 (19 August 2024)

The court declined jurisdiction because the Applicant had adequate means of redress under Rule 28(3) of the High Court Rules, 1980, and thus the constitutional challenge was not properly before the court. The application was dismissed on this basis.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 139
Parties
Applicant: Mosito Ramahloko t/a Tip Top Guest House; 1st Respondent: Nedbank Lesotho Limited; 2nd Respondent: The Minister of Finance; 3rd Respondent: The Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs; 4th Respondent: Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
19 August 2024
Case Number
CC /0022/2023
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Property, Jurisdiction, Judicial Cession
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Right to Fair Trial Right to Property Jurisdiction Judicial Cession

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mosito Ramahloko t/a Tip Top Guest House

Applicant

Nedbank Lesotho Limited

1st Respondent

The Minister of Finance

2nd Respondent

The Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs

3rd Respondent

Attorney-General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 28 summary judgment procedure is unconstitutional for violating rights to fair trial and property
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant judicial cession of Applicant's claim against Government to the bank
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the constitutional challenge given available remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined jurisdiction because the Applicant had adequate means of redress under Rule 28(3) of the High Court Rules, 1980, and thus the constitutional challenge was not properly before the court. The application was dismissed on this basis.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The court declines jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
  • The application is dismissed.