Paul Lesholu V Mofihli Noosi & 4 Others (CIV/APN/265/2021) [2024] LSHC 108 (18 June 2024)

Paul Lesholu V Mofihli Noosi & 4 Others (CIV/APN/265/2021) [2024] LSHC 108 (18 June 2024)

Where a respondent does not file an intention to oppose, Rule 8(13) does not require the applicant to set the matter down. The respondents' failure to prosecute the review application for over a year, despite repeated requests, constitutes inordinate and inexcusable delay, causing prejudice to the applicant and justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 108
Parties
Applicant: Paul Mohanoe Lesholu; 1st Respondent: Mofihli Noosi; 2nd Respondent: Pastor Noosi; 3rd Respondent: His Worship Magistrate Thamae; 4th Respondent: Clerk of Court; 5th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Case Number
CIV/APN/265/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Judgment
Outcome
Application for dismissal granted
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, High Court Rules, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate Delay High Court Rules Abuse of Process

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mohanoe Lesholu

Applicant

Mofihli Noosi

1st Respondent

Pastor Noosi

2nd Respondent

His Worship Magistrate Thamae

3rd Respondent

Clerk of Court

4th Respondent

Attorney General

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should have complied with Rule 8(13) of the High Court Rules of 1980
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has made out a case for dismissal of the review application for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Where a respondent does not file an intention to oppose, Rule 8(13) does not require the applicant to set the matter down. The respondents' failure to prosecute the review application for over a year, despite repeated requests, constitutes inordinate and inexcusable delay, causing prejudice to the applicant and justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal granted

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Respondents to pay costs of suit on attorney and client scale.