Khoromeng v Manamolela (LC/APN/149/2014) [2022] LSHC 82 (2 June 2022)

Khoromeng v Manamolela (LC/APN/149/2014) [2022] LSHC 82 (2 June 2022)

Ministerial consent is not required for a valid sale agreement but is necessary for transfer of title. The applicant, having paid consideration and fulfilled contractual obligations, is entitled to specific performance compelling the seller to facilitate transfer of title. The sublease agreement entered into after...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] LSHC 82
Parties
Applicant: Tebello Khoromeng; 1st Respondent: Mosimoli Manamolela; 2nd Respondent: Goodtrading Supermarket (Pty) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Land Administration Authority; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
2 June 2022
Case Number
LC/APN/149/2014
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted with costs
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Ministerial Consent, Transfer of Title, Specific Performance, Sublease Agreements, Locus Standi
Source Language
english
Land Law Contract Law Sale of Land Ministerial Consent Transfer of Title Specific Performance Sublease Agreements Locus Standi

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Tebello Khoromeng

Applicant

Mosimoli Manamolela

1st Respondent

Goodtrading Supermarket (Pty) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Land Administration Authority

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ministerial consent is required for a valid sale agreement or only for transfer of title
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to specific performance compelling transfer of title
  3. 3 Validity of the sublease agreement between 1st and 2nd respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Ministerial consent is not required for a valid sale agreement but is necessary for transfer of title. The applicant, having paid consideration and fulfilled contractual obligations, is entitled to specific performance compelling the seller to facilitate transfer of title. The sublease agreement entered into after the sale is invalid as the seller had already disposed of his rights. Respondents' objections on locus standi and ministerial consent are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs

Orders

  • The sub-lease agreement between 1st and 2nd respondent registered with the 3rd Respondent is declared null and void.
  • Consent and sub-lease agreement registered by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent are cancelled.