Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Lesotho decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Morena Mariti V ABSA Bank Limited & 3 Others (C of A (CIV) No.47/2025) [2025] LSCA 66 (7 November 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld an urgent order placing a disputed vehicle in police custody pending appeal, holding that ABSA showed prima facie ownership and risk of dissipation.
Tholo Energy (Pty) Ltd v Tlelai (CCA/0008/2023) [2023] LSHC 24 (4 May 2023)
Urgent interdict application granted after the respondent interfered with a subleased filling station and raised only points of law without an answering affidavit.
Hata Butle (Pty) Ltd v Khoete (CCA/0022/2017) [2023] LSHC 4 (7 March 2023)
Contempt was proven against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th Respondents. 1st Respondent was party to and aware of the order; 2nd and 3rd Respondents acted under his authority by entering into sublease agreements in violation of the order. 7th Respondent was notified but did not comply. No evidence against 4th to 6th Respondents. Misjoinder, lis pendens, and non-joinder arguments failed. Dispute of fact was not material to the contempt issue.
Source excerpt
Proaid Holdings Lesotho (Pty) Ltd v Alimela Thuto Financials Ltd (CCA/0095/2020) [2022] LSHC 140 (29 September 2022)
The Central Bank of Lesotho is a necessary party due to its statutory supervisory role and direct interest in shareholding changes. There is no genuine dispute of fact preventing determination on papers. However, the existence of a pending related matter (CCT/0209/20) between the same parties on the same issues (lis pendens) requires dismissal of the application to avoid conflicting judgments and multiplicity of litigation.
Source excerpt
Dlamini v Commissioner of Police (CIV/APN/0170/2022) [2022] LSHC 152 (29 June 2022)
The High Court of Lesotho held that the applicants’ termination as police recruits was unlawful because it violated a subsisting court order suspending the process.
Mabitle v P.E.G (Pty) Ltd (LC/APN/36/2020) [2022] LSHC 78 (3 March 2022)
The court found that the present and prior actions are between the same parties or their successors, concern the same subject matter (plots 425 and 426), and are based on the same cause of action—fraudulent acquisition of title. The reliefs sought in both actions flow from the same main issue. Therefore, the plea of lis pendens is validly raised and the present proceedings must be stayed pending determination of the prior suit.
Source excerpt
Khoali v His Worship Mr Selebeleng (C of A (CIV) 23 of 2020) [2020] LSCA 29 (30 October 2020)
The Court of Appeal set aside a High Court dismissal based on lis pendens, held jurisdiction also had to be considered, and remitted the matter.
Bushman v Lesotho Development and Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (C of A (CIV) 3 of 2015) [2015] LSCA 4 (7 August 2015)
The Court of Appeal set aside a Land Court order that summarily upheld prescription and lis pendens, remitting the dispute for hearing in accordance with the rules.
First National Bank Lesotho v Thotanyana and Another (CCT 173 of 2013) [2015] LSHC 15 (25 February 2015)
The High Court dismissed a special plea, holding that only non-joinder and lis pendens qualified. It ordered the defendants to file their plea within 14 days.
Mokau v Liqhobong Mining Development (Pty) Ltd and Others (LC/REV 44 of 2013) [2015] LSLC 10 (11 February 2015)
The Labour Court of Lesotho refused a review of an arbitration award, finding no estoppel, no ultra vires conduct, and no lis pendens.
Explore more
