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
Louro v Gcp Equipment (Pty) Ltd (CCA/0052/2022) [2022] LSHC 138 (21 October 2022)
The High Court held it had jurisdiction to hear the liquidator’s application, but discharged the interim order for material non-disclosure in the ex parte proceedings.
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
Nthulenyane T/a Cheeze General Dealer v Broom of Africa (CCT/0418/2022) [2022] LSHC 139 (16 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for a temporary interdict, finding no urgency, no prima facie right, and material non-disclosure.
Makeka v Africa Media Holdings (CCA/0085/2021) [2022] LSHC 3 (9 February 2022)
The High Court discharged a rule nisi in an ex parte landlord-tenant dispute, finding material non-disclosure, no proven rent arrears, and awarding punitive costs.
Khomari v The Right Honourable The Prime Minister and Others (CIV/APN 480 of 2014) [2015] LSHC 4 (3 March 2015)
High Court dismissed an urgent civil application seeking to block reinstatement of a principal secretary, finding abuse of process, non-disclosure, and invalid affidavit issues.
Mohapeloa v Lesotho Electricity Company (Pty) Ltd (LC 88 of 2014) [2015] LSLC 3 (11 February 2015)
The Labour Court has jurisdiction over the application as it relates to a matter pending before the DDPR and arises from the employment relationship. However, the applicant failed to establish a right to an interdict as his alleged right to occupy the house is contingent on a future declaration by the DDPR. Additionally, the applicant failed to disclose material facts relevant to the claim, which would have influenced the court's decision to grant the interdict.
Source excerpt
Standard Lesotho Bank v Matsoso (CCA 64 of 2013) [2014] LSHC 85 (28 March 2014)
The High Court dismissed a respondent’s preliminary objections in a sequestration petition, holding that the objections lacked merit and the matter should proceed to the merits.
Roma Valley Co-operative Society v Malefane and Others (CIV/T 248 of 2012) [2012] LSHC 39 (2 August 2012)
The High Court dismissed a land-related interdict application for lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-disclosure, and failure to show a clear right.
Seroma Sandstone production (Pty) Ltd v Kotelo and Others (CIV/APN 601 of 2011) [2012] LSHC 56 (29 February 2012)
The High Court dismissed an ex parte interdict over a VAT refund, finding no proper authority, material non-disclosure, and an unsupported fraud allegation.
Lehlohonolo v LETA Security Guards (Pty) Ltd (CIV/APN 512 of 10) [2010] LSHC 106 (10 November 2010)
The High Court of Lesotho dismissed a provisional winding-up application for lack of urgency, non-joinder, material non-disclosure, and no proper locus standi.
Explore more
