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.
Makibinyane Mohapeloa V Limpho Mohapeloa & 5 Others (LC/APN/0016/2023) [2024] LSHC 245 (25 October 2024)
The applicant’s claim is vindicatory in nature, asserting ownership rights and seeking restoration of possession or compensation for market value, not arising from a commercial or business relationship. The Land Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The preliminary objection is dismissed.
Source excerpt
NKhetheleng Mohale & Ano. V 'Masenate Letsie & 6 Others (LC/APN/61/2014) [2024] LSHC 105 (18 June 2024)
The court declared the applicants lawful owners of the plot, found the competing transfer invalid, ordered cancellation of the lease, and directed a lease to the applicants.
Kotsokoane v Molapo (LC/APN 13) [2020] LSHC 3 (9 March 2020)
The court held that the respondents were bona fide possessors with an improvement lien, but their claim for a fixed compensation sum failed for lack of proof.
Kuleile v Mohloboli and Another (LC/APN 2014) [2015] LSHC 50 (9 December 2015)
The court upheld the applicant’s lease title to the disputed urban plot, rejected the respondent’s claim to title, and ordered ejectment-related relief, while recognizing a possible lien for necessary expenses.
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.
Source excerpt
Midmacor (Pty) Limited v Zakhura Brothers (Pty) Limited; Midmacor (Pty) Limited v Zakhura Brothers (Pty) Llimited (CIV/APN/274/88) [1995] LSCA 89 (23 June 1995)
The High Court ordered release of two generators to Midmacor, holding it proved ownership and that Zakhura Brothers had no right to retain them.
Explore more
