Ramashamole V Mathiba (CCT/ 258 of 2022) [2023] LSHC 90 (4 May 2023)

Ramashamole V Mathiba (CCT/ 258 of 2022) [2023] LSHC 90 (4 May 2023)

The applicant was in wilful default due to negligence or apathy, did not provide a credible explanation for default, and failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence or prospects of success. The requirements for rescission under the High Court Rules and common law were not satisfied.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 90
Parties
Applicant: Thabang Ramashamole; 1st Respondent: Mpho Mathiba; 2nd Respondent: Deputy Sheriff
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
4 May 2023
Case Number
CCT/ 258 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission
Outcome
application for rescission dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Thabang Ramashamole

Applicant

Mpho Mathiba

1st Respondent

Deputy Sheriff

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Application for Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for default
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was in wilful default
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was in wilful default due to negligence or apathy, did not provide a credible explanation for default, and failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence or prospects of success. The requirements for rescission under the High Court Rules and common law were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

application for rescission dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The rule is discharged.
  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.