Tsotetsi v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (CIV/APN 445 of 99) [2000] LSCA 94 (4 May 2000)

Tsotetsi v Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (CIV/APN 445 of 99) [2000] LSCA 94 (4 May 2000)

The default judgment was granted in error due to applicant's failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically non-compliance with Form J and Rule 8(7), and the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to oppose. The audi alteram partem principle was breached, justifying rescission of the judgment.

Citation
[2000] LSCA 94
Parties
Applicant: Raphael Tsotetsi; Respondent: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
4 May 2000
Case Number
CIV/APN 445 of 99
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission
Outcome
Rescission of judgment granted
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Rules of Court, Audi Alteram Partem
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Rules of Court Audi Alteram Partem

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raphael Tsotetsi

Applicant

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment should be rescinded due to procedural irregularities and non-compliance with the Rules of Court
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's Notice of Motion complied with Form J and Rule 8(7)
  3. 3 Whether respondent's failure to attend court constituted culpable remissiveness

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was granted in error due to applicant's failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically non-compliance with Form J and Rule 8(7), and the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to oppose. The audi alteram partem principle was breached, justifying rescission of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Rescission of judgment granted

Orders

  • Rescission of judgment is granted
  • No order as to costs; each party to pay its own costs