Teboho Liau V Minister of Defence and National Security & 3 Others (C of A (CIV) 22/2025) [2025] LSCA 52 (7 November 2025)

Teboho Liau V Minister of Defence and National Security & 3 Others (C of A (CIV) 22/2025) [2025] LSCA 52 (7 November 2025)

The High Court erred in finding the delay inordinate and the explanation untenable, and misapplied the doctrine of res judicata by failing to distinguish the causes of action in the two applications. The explanation for delay was not so weak as to preclude consideration of prospects of success, which were reasonable. The punitive costs order was unjustified and contrary to the Biowatch principle.

Citation
[2025] LSCA 52
Parties
Appellant: Teboho Liau; 1st Respondent: Minister of Defence and National Security; 2nd Respondent: P. S. Ministry of Defence and National Security; 3rd Respondent: Ministry of Defence and National Security; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Case Number
C of A (CIV) 22/2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Condonation
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Condonation, Res Judicata, Judicial Review, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Condonation Res Judicata Judicial Review Costs

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teboho Liau

Appellant

Minister of Defence and National Security

1st Respondent

P. S. Ministry of Defence and National Security

2nd Respondent

Ministry of Defence and National Security

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in instituting review proceedings was unreasonable and inordinate
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay was tenable
  3. 3 Whether the matter was res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in finding the delay inordinate and the explanation untenable, and misapplied the doctrine of res judicata by failing to distinguish the causes of action in the two applications. The explanation for delay was not so weak as to preclude consideration of prospects of success, which were reasonable. The punitive costs order was unjustified and contrary to the Biowatch principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The High Court order is set aside and replaced with: application for condonation is granted, with costs.