Ntsane and Others v Investment triangle (CIV/A 19 of 2011) [2012] LSHC 4 (9 February 2012)

Ntsane and Others v Investment triangle (CIV/A 19 of 2011) [2012] LSHC 4 (9 February 2012)

Appellants were found to be mala fide occupiers as the respondent held lawful title since 1994, prior to appellants' occupation. Therefore, no notice or compensation was required before ejectment.

Citation
[2012] LSHC 4
Parties
1st Appellant: Thabo Ntsane; 2nd Appellant: Khetheng Khetheng; 3rd Appellant: Ntsoaki Ramolahloane; 4th Appellant: Phalatsane Khechane; 5th Appellant: Motśoane Mofolo; 6th Appellant: ‘Matumelo Motosola; 7th Appellant: Lefu Lehloka; 8th Appellant: Abel Kholopo; 9th Appellant: Mota; Respondent: Investment Triangle (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
9 February 2012
Case Number
CIV/A 19 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Notice to Vacate, Compensation, Bona Fide Occupier, Mala Fide Occupier
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Ejectment Notice to Vacate Compensation Bona Fide Occupier Mala Fide Occupier

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Ntsane

1st Appellant

Khetheng Khetheng

2nd Appellant

Ntsoaki Ramolahloane

3rd Appellant

Phalatsane Khechane

4th Appellant

Motśoane Mofolo

5th Appellant

‘Matumelo Motosola

6th Appellant

Lefu Lehloka

7th Appellant

Abel Kholopo

8th Appellant

Mota

9th Appellant

Investment Triangle (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were bona fide or mala fide occupiers
  2. 2 Whether notice and compensation were required before ejectment
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate erred in granting ejectment

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants were found to be mala fide occupiers as the respondent held lawful title since 1994, prior to appellants' occupation. Therefore, no notice or compensation was required before ejectment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellants to pay costs