Palesa Khotso & Ano. V Letshego Financial Services LTD (CCT/0149/2022) [2025] LSHC 121 (14 April 2025)

Palesa Khotso & Ano. V Letshego Financial Services LTD (CCT/0149/2022) [2025] LSHC 121 (14 April 2025)

The application was an egregious abuse of the urgency procedure as applicants were properly served, aware of proceedings, and the execution process complied with the rules. No urgency or substantive irregularity was established. Applicants failed to meet requirements for interim interdict. Application dismissed with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] LSHC 121
Parties
Applicant: Palesa Khotso; Applicant: Moora Mphethi; Respondent: Letshego Financial Services Lesotho Ltd; Respondent: The Deputy Sheriff (Mr Kharametsane); Respondent: Hlompho Kelly Maitin; Respondent: Land Administration Authority
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Case Number
CCT/0149/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Urgent Application and Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney and own client scale.
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Writ of Execution, Abuse of Process, Interim Interdicts, Attachment and Sale in Execution
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Credit and Security Law Urgent Applications Writ of Execution Abuse of Process Interim Interdicts Attachment and Sale in Execution

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palesa Khotso

Applicant

Moora Mphethi

Applicant

Letshego Financial Services Lesotho Ltd

Respondent

The Deputy Sheriff (Mr Kharametsane)

Respondent

Hlompho Kelly Maitin

Respondent

Land Administration Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Urgent Application and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and justified under the rules
  2. 2 Whether the writ of execution and sale in execution were irregular
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were properly served and aware of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application was an egregious abuse of the urgency procedure as applicants were properly served, aware of proceedings, and the execution process complied with the rules. No urgency or substantive irregularity was established. Applicants failed to meet requirements for interim interdict. Application dismissed with punitive costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The application in the main and in the alternative is dismissed with costs on attorney and own client costs.