Phakisi v Tlapana (C of A (CIV) 50 of 2014) [2015] LSCA 18 (7 August 2015)
The court granted the postponement as unopposed and ordered wasted costs to be paid by the respondent as tendered and accepted by the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] LSCA 18
- Parties
- Appellant: Tlali Phakisi; Respondent: Motlatsi Charles Tlapana
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- C of A (CIV) 50 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal/postponement
- Outcome
- Postponement granted; wasted costs awarded as agreed.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Postponement, Wasted Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tlali Phakisi
Appellant
Motlatsi Charles Tlapana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal/postponement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant could directly appeal without leave of the court
- 2 Whether postponement should be granted and costs awarded
Ratio Decidendi
The court granted the postponement as unopposed and ordered wasted costs to be paid by the respondent as tendered and accepted by the appellant.
Court Disposition
Postponement granted; wasted costs awarded as agreed.
Orders
- Postponement granted
- Respondent to pay wasted costs of the postponement
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE APPEAL COURT OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU In the matter between C of A (CIV)/50/2014 TLALI PHAKISI Appellant And MOTLATSI CHARLES TLAPANA Respondent CORAM: MONAPATHI JA HLAJOANE JA DAMASEB AJA Heard Delivered : : 30th July, 2015 7th August, 2015 JUDGEMENT MONAPATHI AJ [1] In this appeal matter, the main issue was that the High Court had refused the Appellant leave to appeal to this court and the Appellant instead of applying for leave to this court noted a direct appeal. [2] Appellant was asked to rectify a certificate for correctness of the record duly signed by the Registrar. Having done so, he then applied for postponement of the matter. Respondent did not oppose. Respondent also tendered wasted costs of the postponement to which the Appellant agreed. That became the order of court. -------------------------- T. E. MONAPATHI JUSTICE OF APPEAL I agree I agree ------------------------- M. A. HLAJOANE JUSTICE OF APPEAL ---------------------- P. T. DAMASEB ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL For Appellant For Respondent : : Adv. Thulo Adv. Tlapana