Mphana v Malefane (CIV/T 266 of 88) [1994] LSCA 72 (31 March 1994)

Mphana v Malefane (CIV/T 266 of 88) [1994] LSCA 72 (31 March 1994)

The Defendant's certificate of title was invalid as the site had already been allocated and developed by Plaintiff's family, and no lawful revocation or hearing occurred before the purported reallocation to Defendant's father. The registration was a nullity as the Deeds Registry Act did not apply to the rural site. Plaintiff, as heiress, had locus standi to sue. Delay did not bar the claim as no prejudice was shown and Sotho customary law does not prescribe such rights.

Citation
[1994] LSCA 72
Parties
Plaintiff: Thabo Mphana; Defendant: Neo Malefane
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
31 March 1994
Case Number
CIV/T 266 of 88
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Title to Land, Certificate of Title, Allocation of Land, Customary Succession, Deeds Registry Act, Revocation of Allocation
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Ejectment Title to Land Certificate of Title Allocation of Land Customary Succession Deeds Registry Act +1 more

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Mphana

Plaintiff

Neo Malefane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's certificate of title to occupy and registered title to immoveable property was validly issued
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff has locus standi to sue for cancellation and ejectment
  3. 3 Whether the site was lawfully allocated to Defendant's father

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's certificate of title was invalid as the site had already been allocated and developed by Plaintiff's family, and no lawful revocation or hearing occurred before the purported reallocation to Defendant's father. The registration was a nullity as the Deeds Registry Act did not apply to the rural site. Plaintiff, as heiress, had locus standi to sue. Delay did not bar the claim as no prejudice was shown and Sotho customary law does not prescribe such rights.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Registered Certificate of Title to Occupy and Certificate of Registered Title to Immoveable Property No. 15940 registered on 17th June, 1980 to be cancelled by the Registrar of Deeds
  • Defendant to vacate the site in question