Mofoka v Ntsane and Others (LC/APN 2014) [2014] LSHC 96 (29 October 2014)

Mofoka v Ntsane and Others (LC/APN 2014) [2014] LSHC 96 (29 October 2014)

Applicant failed to show good cause or lack of due notice for rescission under Rule 57, did not prove fraud attributable to 1st respondent, and had no locus standi to seek review under Rule 84. The default judgment was properly entered as the claim was for a liquidated demand and applicant was in wilful default.

Citation
[2014] LSHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Rasetla Mofoka; 1st Respondent: Lesenyeho Ntsane; 2nd Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; 3rd Respondent: Land Administration Authority; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Case Number
LC/APN 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission/review of Default Judgment / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Review Proceedings, Fraud Allegations, Locus Standi
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Review Proceedings Fraud Allegations Locus Standi

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasetla Mofoka

Applicant

Lesenyeho Ntsane

1st Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

2nd Respondent

Land Administration Authority

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission/review of Default Judgment / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant is entitled to rescission or review of default judgment under Rules 57 and 85 of the Land Court Rules, 2012
  2. 2 Whether default judgment was obtained by fraud or in absence of due notice
  3. 3 Whether hearing of evidence was necessary before entering default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to show good cause or lack of due notice for rescission under Rule 57, did not prove fraud attributable to 1st respondent, and had no locus standi to seek review under Rule 84. The default judgment was properly entered as the claim was for a liquidated demand and applicant was in wilful default.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Costs de bonis propriis awarded against applicant