Prosperity Insurance Brokers Ltd Lesotho Central Bank of Lesotho and Others (CIV/APN 133 of 2010) [2012] LSHC 89 (22 August 2012)

Prosperity Insurance Brokers Ltd Lesotho Central Bank of Lesotho and Others (CIV/APN 133 of 2010) [2012] LSHC 89 (22 August 2012)

The third respondent failed to provide a reasonable or bona fide explanation for its default, did not comply with the rules of court, and cannot rely on another respondent's opposition. The application for rescission does not meet the requirements of Rule 45 and is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2012] LSHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Prosperity Insurance Broker (Ltd) Lesotho; 1st Respondent: Central Bank of Lesotho; 2nd Respondent: Alliance Insurance Co. (Pty) Ltd.; 3rd Respondent: Prosperity Insurance Co. Ltd. Lesotho
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
22 August 2012
Case Number
CIV/APN 133 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
application for rescission dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Application Proceedings, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Application Proceedings Service 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosperity Insurance Broker (Ltd) Lesotho

Applicant

Central Bank of Lesotho

1st Respondent

Alliance Insurance Co. (Pty) Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Prosperity Insurance Co. Ltd. Lesotho

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent has shown sufficient cause for rescission of the default judgment under Rule 45
  2. 2 Whether failure to oppose due to assumption based on advice from another respondent constitutes a valid reason for default
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in confirming the rule nisi in the absence of the third respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The third respondent failed to provide a reasonable or bona fide explanation for its default, did not comply with the rules of court, and cannot rely on another respondent's opposition. The application for rescission does not meet the requirements of Rule 45 and is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application for rescission dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Third respondent's application for rescission is dismissed with costs to the applicant.