Nedbank Lesotho Limited v Tseliso Clovis Manyeli t/a Copy Shop (CCT 42 of 2010) [2012] LSHC 53 (5 March 2012)

Nedbank Lesotho Limited v Tseliso Clovis Manyeli t/a Copy Shop (CCT 42 of 2010) [2012] LSHC 53 (5 March 2012)

The applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence as the hire purchase agreement did not absolve him from liability upon total loss of the goods, and the bank was entitled to claim the outstanding balance from him, less any insurance payout. The argument that the bank should have sued the insurer was rejected as misconceived.

Citation
[2012] LSHC 53
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Lesotho Limited; Respondent: Tseliso Clovis Manyeli t/a Copy Shop
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
5 March 2012
Case Number
CCT 42 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Recission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Recission
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client basis
Legal Topics
Recission of Default Judgment, Hire Purchase Agreement, Insurance Liability, Summary Judgment
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Insurance Law Recission of Default Judgment Hire Purchase Agreement Insurance Liability Summary Judgment

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Lesotho Limited

Applicant

Tseliso Clovis Manyeli t/a Copy Shop

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Recission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Recission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown a bona fide defence to the claim under the hire purchase agreement
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is absolved from liability upon total loss of the insured goods
  3. 3 Whether the bank should have sued the insurer instead of the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence as the hire purchase agreement did not absolve him from liability upon total loss of the goods, and the bank was entitled to claim the outstanding balance from him, less any insurance payout. The argument that the bank should have sued the insurer was rejected as misconceived.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client basis

Orders

  • Application for recission of default judgment is dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent on attorney and client basis, to be taxed or agreed