Pulane Letseka V Rets'elisitsoe Sootho (CIV/T/0182/2022) [2024] LSHC 110 (19 December 2024)

Pulane Letseka V Rets'elisitsoe Sootho (CIV/T/0182/2022) [2024] LSHC 110 (19 December 2024)

There were no proven changes in the circumstances of the custodial parent or the children that were inimical to the best interests of the children to justify varying the custody order. The evidence showed the children were better cared for in the father's custody, and the applicant was unable to provide adequate care, support, or ensure their schooling. The application was improperly brought under Rule 45(1)(a), but the court exercised discretion to consider the merits in the children's interests and found no grounds for variation.

Citation
[2024] LSHC 110
Parties
Applicant: Pulane Letseka; 1st Respondent: Ret’selisitsoe Sootho; 2nd Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Case Number
CIV/T/0182/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (variation of Custody Order) / Final Judgment After Interim Orders and Social Inquiry
Outcome
Application for variation of custody order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody Orders, Best Interests of the Child, Jurisdiction of High Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Access Rights of Non Custodial Parent
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Variation of Custody Orders Best Interests of the Child Jurisdiction of High Court Enforcement of Court Orders Access Rights of Non Custodial Parent

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pulane Letseka

Applicant

Ret’selisitsoe Sootho

1st Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (variation of Custody Order) / Final Judgment After Interim Orders and Social Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the custody order should be varied in favour of the applicant
  2. 2 Whether High Court Rule 45(1)(a) applies to variation of custody orders
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the minor children warrant a change in custody

Ratio Decidendi

There were no proven changes in the circumstances of the custodial parent or the children that were inimical to the best interests of the children to justify varying the custody order. The evidence showed the children were better cared for in the father's custody, and the applicant was unable to provide adequate care, support, or ensure their schooling. The application was improperly brought under Rule 45(1)(a), but the court exercised discretion to consider the merits in the children's interests and found no grounds for variation.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of custody order dismissed.

Orders

  • Children to be relocated forthwith into their father’s custody.
  • Mother to have access to the children one weekend per month during school term and during specified school vacations.