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.
Parties
Standard Lesotho Bank
Applicant
Matšeliso Rasethuntša
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Ruling on Rescission Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant under Rule 45(1)(a)
- 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- Judgment of 6th December 2017 set aside and rescinded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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment