Selikane v Nkhope (CCA 27 of 20) [2020] LSHC 28 (17 August 2020)

Selikane v Nkhope (CCA 27 of 20) [2020] LSHC 28 (17 August 2020)

The application was dismissed because the applicant reasonably foresaw material disputes of fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged sale agreement, making the matter unsuitable for determination on affidavit evidence alone. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss rather than refer to oral evidence, as the applicant chose motion proceedings at his peril.

Citation
[2020] LSHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Ts’episo Selikane; 1st Respondent: Manapo Nkhope; 2nd Respondent: Moshabe Nthebe; 3rd Respondent: 'Malinoto Maferka
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
17 August 2020 17 August 2020 11 August 2020
Case Number
CCA 27 of 20
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Interdicts, Lis Pendens, Material Disputes of Fact, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Breach of Contract Interdicts Lis Pendens Material Disputes of Fact +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ts’episo Selikane

Applicant

Manapo Nkhope

1st Respondent

Moshabe Nthebe

2nd Respondent

'Malinoto Maferka

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be dismissed due to material disputes of fact
  2. 2 Whether the application is barred by lis pendens or res judicata
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's founding affidavit is defective for non-compliance with statutory requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant reasonably foresaw material disputes of fact regarding the existence and terms of the alleged sale agreement, making the matter unsuitable for determination on affidavit evidence alone. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss rather than refer to oral evidence, as the applicant chose motion proceedings at his peril.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.