Standard Lesotho Bank v Rasethunts'a (CIV/APN 204 of 7) [2019] LSHC 2 (12 April 2019)

Standard Lesotho Bank v Rasethunts'a (CIV/APN 204 of 7) [2019] LSHC 2 (12 April 2019)

The judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant because material facts were not disclosed to the court, which could have precluded the granting of the judgment had the court been aware of them. Therefore, rescission is warranted under Rule 45(1)(a).

Citation
[2019] LSHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Standard Lesotho Bank; Respondent: Matšeliso Rasethuntša
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Case Number
CIV/APN 204 of 7
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Ruling on Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for rescission granted with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Rule 45 Applications
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Lesotho Bank

Applicant

Matšeliso Rasethuntša

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Judgment / Ruling on Rescission Application

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant under Rule 45(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether material facts were withheld from the court at the time of granting judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant because material facts were not disclosed to the court, which could have precluded the granting of the judgment had the court been aware of them. Therefore, rescission is warranted under Rule 45(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted with costs

Orders

  • Judgment of 6th December 2017 set aside and rescinded
  • Respondent to pay costs of the application