Seipati Ramone V Standard Lesotho Bank & 4 Others (CCT/0517/2024) [2025] LSHC 240 (11 September 2025)

Seipati Ramone V Standard Lesotho Bank & 4 Others (CCT/0517/2024) [2025] LSHC 240 (11 September 2025)

The court found that there was no error in making the deed of settlement an order of court, as the applicant had agreed to its terms, including the right of the 1st respondent to execute upon default. The applicant defaulted on the agreed payments, entitling the 1st respondent to execute. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2025] LSHC 240
Parties
Applicant: Seipati Ramona; 1st Respondent: Standard Lesotho Bank Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Deputy Sheriff Monyako; 3rd Respondent: Land Administration Authority; 4th Respondent: Thabiso Makepe
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
11 September 2025
Case Number
CCT/0517/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Mortgage Enforcement, Settlement Agreements, Execution of Judgments
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Property Law Rescission of Judgment Mortgage Enforcement Settlement Agreements Execution of Judgments

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

Parties

Seipati Ramona

Applicant

Standard Lesotho Bank Ltd

1st Respondent

Deputy Sheriff Monyako

2nd Respondent

Land Administration Authority

3rd Respondent

Thabiso Makepe

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment was erroneously granted under Rule 159 of the High Court Civil Litigation Rules 2024
  2. 2 Whether the deed of settlement and its conversion into a court order was valid and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was in default and entitled to rescission

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no error in making the deed of settlement an order of court, as the applicant had agreed to its terms, including the right of the 1st respondent to execute upon default. The applicant defaulted on the agreed payments, entitling the 1st respondent to execute. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.