Road Fund Secretariat V Bafani Construction (PTY) LTD & 3 Others (CCA/0048/2024) [2025] LSHC 245 (18 September 2025)

Road Fund Secretariat V Bafani Construction (PTY) LTD & 3 Others (CCA/0048/2024) [2025] LSHC 245 (18 September 2025)

The 1st respondent is in contempt of court for wilfully and unreasonably failing to refer the dispute to arbitration as ordered, and its excuses of poverty and procedural delay are not bona fide. Punitive measures cannot be imposed on unnamed and uncited directors due to lack of joinder and procedural fairness.

Citation
[2025] LSHC 245
Parties
Applicant: Road Fund Secretariat; 1st Respondent: Bafani Construction (Pty) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Officer Commanding Maseru Central Charge Office; 3rd Respondent: Commissioner of Police; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Case Number
CCA/0048/2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment After Hearing of Contempt Application
Outcome
1st respondent found in contempt of court; punitive fine imposed if non-compliance continues; punitive costs awarded; no punitive order against directors.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Arbitration, Company Liability, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Contempt of Court Arbitration Company Liability Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Road Fund Secretariat

Applicant

Bafani Construction (Pty) Ltd

1st Respondent

Officer Commanding Maseru Central Charge Office

2nd Respondent

Commissioner of Police

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment After Hearing of Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent is in contempt of court for failing to refer the dispute to arbitration as ordered
  2. 2 Whether punitive measures can be imposed on unnamed and uncited directors of the 1st respondent
  3. 3 Whether poverty or procedural delays justify non-compliance with a court order

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st respondent is in contempt of court for wilfully and unreasonably failing to refer the dispute to arbitration as ordered, and its excuses of poverty and procedural delay are not bona fide. Punitive measures cannot be imposed on unnamed and uncited directors due to lack of joinder and procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

1st respondent found in contempt of court; punitive fine imposed if non-compliance continues; punitive costs awarded; no punitive order against directors.

Orders

  • 1st respondent declared in contempt of court order issued on 07 November 2024.
  • 1st respondent to purge contempt within 10 days, failing which to pay a fine of M30,000.00 to the Registrar within 30 days.