Mputsoe v Mothibeli (CIV/APN/119/2021) [2022] LSHC 135 (13 September 2022)

Mputsoe v Mothibeli (CIV/APN/119/2021) [2022] LSHC 135 (13 September 2022)

The purported sale of the motor vehicle by the deceased to the 2nd Respondent was invalid for lack of spousal consent as required by law. The car, still registered in the deceased's name, forms part of the estate to be administered by the executor, who is entitled to recover it for inventory and distribution purposes.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 135
Parties
1st Applicant: Moniti Derrick Mputsoe NO; 2nd Applicant: Late Estate Mateese Ninico Mothibeli Mputsoe E193/20; 1st Respondent: Mathato Mothibeli; 2nd Respondent: George Ts’upane; 3rd Respondent: Master of the High Court; 4th Respondent: Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Department of Traffic); 5th Respondent: Commissioner of Traffic; 6th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Case Number
CIV/APN/119/2021
Procedural Posture
Originating Motion (application) / Judgment After Hearing of Application
Outcome
Application granted as prayed.
Legal Topics
Administration of Deceased Estates, Alienation of Matrimonial Property, Executor's Duties, Validity of Sale of Matrimonial Property, Spousal Consent
Source Language
English
Succession Law Family Law Property Law Administration of Deceased Estates Alienation of Matrimonial Property Executor's Duties Validity of Sale of Matrimonial Property Spousal Consent

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moniti Derrick Mputsoe NO

1st Applicant

Late Estate Mateese Ninico Mothibeli Mputsoe E193/20

2nd Applicant

Mathato Mothibeli

1st Respondent

George Ts’upane

2nd Respondent

Master of the High Court

3rd Respondent

Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Department of Traffic)

4th Respondent

Commissioner of Traffic

5th Respondent

Attorney General

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Motion (application) / Judgment After Hearing of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the executor is entitled to vindicatory relief for a motor vehicle in possession of the 2nd Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the motor vehicle by the deceased to the 2nd Respondent was valid without spousal consent
  3. 3 Whether the property forms part of the deceased estate to be administered by the executor

Ratio Decidendi

The purported sale of the motor vehicle by the deceased to the 2nd Respondent was invalid for lack of spousal consent as required by law. The car, still registered in the deceased's name, forms part of the estate to be administered by the executor, who is entitled to recover it for inventory and distribution purposes.

Court Disposition

Application granted as prayed.

Orders

  • Respondents interdicted from alienating, destroying, or disposing of the specified vehicle and documents pending finalization of the application.
  • 2nd Respondent directed to release the vehicle to the Applicants for administration in the estate.