Tlali Phakisi v Motlatsi Charles Tlapana (CIV/A 30 of 30) [2014] LSHC 34 (26 March 2014)

Tlali Phakisi v Motlatsi Charles Tlapana (CIV/A 30 of 30) [2014] LSHC 34 (26 March 2014)

Condonation for non-compliance with Rule 52(1) was granted as the delay was satisfactorily explained and the matter was important; the respondent had rights to the land by inheritance and was not a remover under section 7(7) of Part 1 of Laws of Lerotholi; there was no merit in the non-joinder argument as Seabata Tlapana had no direct and substantial interest; the court a quo erred in not awarding costs to the successful party as the matter was no longer a family dispute after withdrawal against Seabata.

Citation
[2014] LSHC 34
Parties
Appellant: Tlali Phakisi; Respondent: Motlatsi Charles Tlapana
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 March 2014
Case Number
CIV/A 30 of 30
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs upheld; condonation granted; appeal revived.
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Rei Vindicatio, Inheritance of Land, Condonation of Procedural Non Compliance, Costs in Litigation
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Customary Law Ejectment Rei Vindicatio Inheritance of Land Condonation of Procedural Non Compliance Costs in Litigation

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tlali Phakisi

Appellant

Motlatsi Charles Tlapana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Hearing Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for non-compliance with Rule 52(1) of the High Court Rules should be granted and the appeal revived
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had rights over the plot in issue under section 7(7) of Part 1 of Laws of Lerotholi
  3. 3 Whether failure to join Seabata Tlapana was fatal to the respondent's case

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for non-compliance with Rule 52(1) was granted as the delay was satisfactorily explained and the matter was important; the respondent had rights to the land by inheritance and was not a remover under section 7(7) of Part 1 of Laws of Lerotholi; there was no merit in the non-joinder argument as Seabata Tlapana had no direct and substantial interest; the court a quo erred in not awarding costs to the successful party as the matter was no longer a family dispute after withdrawal against Seabata.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs upheld; condonation granted; appeal revived.

Orders

  • The appeal noted on 6 May 2013 is revived and non-compliance with Rule 52(1) condoned.
  • Respondent to bear costs incurred in opposing condonation and revival of appeal.