Ramphalla v Barclays Bank PLC and Another (CIV/APN/257/95; CIV/T/565/92) [1997] LSHC 15 (5 February 1997)

Ramphalla v Barclays Bank PLC and Another (CIV/APN/257/95; CIV/T/565/92) [1997] LSHC 15 (5 February 1997)

The applicant/defendant was properly served with summons as evidenced by the Deputy Sheriff's return of service, which was not rebutted by clear and satisfactory evidence. The applicant was aware of the default judgment since 1993 and failed to raise the issue of non-service until two years later. The application for rescission was time barred and security for costs was not paid. The default judgment was not erroneously granted.

Citation
[1997] LSHC 15
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Michael Mpheta Ramphalla; 1st Respondent/plaintiff: Barclays Bank PLC; 2nd Respondent: Deputy Sheriff (Mr. L. Matete)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
5 February 1997
Case Number
CIV/APN/257/95 ; CIV/T/565/92
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution and Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Stay of Execution, Service of Process, Security for Costs, Time Bar
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Rescission of Default Judgment Stay of Execution Service of Process Security for Costs Time Bar

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

Parties

Michael Mpheta Ramphalla

Applicant/defendant

Barclays Bank PLC

1st Respondent/plaintiff

Deputy Sheriff (Mr. L. Matete)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution and Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant/defendant within the meaning of Rule 45(1) of the High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the applicant/defendant was properly served with summons
  3. 3 Whether the application for rescission is time barred and whether security for costs was required

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant/defendant was properly served with summons as evidenced by the Deputy Sheriff's return of service, which was not rebutted by clear and satisfactory evidence. The applicant was aware of the default judgment since 1993 and failed to raise the issue of non-service until two years later. The application for rescission was time barred and security for costs was not paid. The default judgment was not erroneously granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Rule nisi discharged
  • Application for stay of execution and rescission of default judgment dismissed with costs