Sehloho Lethetsa v Lipuo Sekasha & Ano. (CCT/0262/2016) [2025] LSHC 199 (14 August 2025)

Sehloho Lethetsa v Lipuo Sekasha & Ano. (CCT/0262/2016) [2025] LSHC 199 (14 August 2025)

The Plaintiff was not in breach as the payment schedule was disrupted by the Defendant's delay in evicting occupants, and no new payment schedule was agreed. The Defendant did not place the Plaintiff in mora by demand, so no breach occurred. The Defendant's refusal to accept payment and unilateral demand for interest constituted breach. The contract was enforceable as the property was ascertainable. Specific performance was the appropriate remedy.

Citation
[2025] LSHC 199
Parties
Plaintiff: Sehloho Lethetsa; 1st Defendant: Lipuo Lydia Sekasha; 2nd Defendant: Land Administrative Authority
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
14 August 2025
Case Number
CCT/0262/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Judgment After Trial (stated Case)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for specific performance granted; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Sale of Immovable Property
Source Language
English
Contract Law Specific Performance Breach of Contract Sale of Immovable Property

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sehloho Lethetsa

Plaintiff

Lipuo Lydia Sekasha

1st Defendant

Land Administrative Authority

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Judgment After Trial (stated Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff breached the contract and if such breach entitled the 1st Defendant to cancel the agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance or, alternatively, to a refund and damages
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to damages and cancellation as set out in the counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff was not in breach as the payment schedule was disrupted by the Defendant's delay in evicting occupants, and no new payment schedule was agreed. The Defendant did not place the Plaintiff in mora by demand, so no breach occurred. The Defendant's refusal to accept payment and unilateral demand for interest constituted breach. The contract was enforceable as the property was ascertainable. Specific performance was the appropriate remedy.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for specific performance granted; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant to accept payment of M76,000.00 from Plaintiff.
  • 1st Defendant to take all necessary steps to transfer the portion of property forming part of plot No. 14271-2091 to the Plaintiff.