Tholo Energy (Pty) Ltd v Tlelai (CCA/0008/2023) [2023] LSHC 24 (4 May 2023)

Tholo Energy (Pty) Ltd v Tlelai (CCA/0008/2023) [2023] LSHC 24 (4 May 2023)

The 1st respondent's failure to file an answering affidavit on the merits, combined with his admission of interference and lack of plausible legal justification, entitled the applicant to relief. The points of law raised were without merit, and the requirements for an interdict were satisfied. The court found urgency established and granted the interdict as prayed.

Citation
[2023] LSHC 24
Parties
Applicant: Tholo Energy (Pty) Ltd; 1st Respondent: Tumo Tlelai; 2nd Respondent: Mendi Group (Pty) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: RE3 Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
4 May 2023
Case Number
CCA/0008/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application (urgent Interdict) / Judgment After Hearing Arguments on Points of Law and Merits
Outcome
Application granted as prayed in terms of Prayer 2(a) with costs against the 1st respondent.
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Interdicts, Jurisdiction, Self Help, Lis Pendens, Non Joinder, Misjoinder
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Urgent Applications Interdicts Jurisdiction Self Help Lis Pendens +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tholo Energy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Tumo Tlelai

1st Respondent

Mendi Group (Pty) Ltd

2nd Respondent

RE3 Holdings (Pty) Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application (urgent Interdict) / Judgment After Hearing Arguments on Points of Law and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is barred from filing answering affidavit if only points of law are raised under Rule 8(10)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining interference with its business pending litigation
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st respondent's failure to file an answering affidavit on the merits, combined with his admission of interference and lack of plausible legal justification, entitled the applicant to relief. The points of law raised were without merit, and the requirements for an interdict were satisfied. The court found urgency established and granted the interdict as prayed.

Court Disposition

Application granted as prayed in terms of Prayer 2(a) with costs against the 1st respondent.

Orders

  • Interdict granted restraining the 1st respondent and his agents from interfering with the business of the filling station on Plot No. 13302 – 018, 13302 – 019 and 13303 – 020 at Lithabaneng, Maseru, pending finalization of this application and CCA/0126/2022.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant against the 1st respondent.