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
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (C of A (CIV) No.28/2025) [2025] LSCA 57 (7 November 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that LHDA’s duty to compensate affected communities arose from the Constitution, treaty and statute, and could not be defeated by policy.
Sehloho Lethetsa v Lipuo Sekasha & Ano. (CCT/0262/2016) [2025] LSHC 199 (14 August 2025)
The Plaintiff was not in breach as the payment schedule was disrupted by the Defendant's delay in evicting occupants, and no new payment schedule was agreed. The Defendant did not place the Plaintiff in mora by demand, so no breach occurred. The Defendant's refusal to accept payment and unilateral demand for interest constituted breach. The contract was enforceable as the property was ascertainable. Specific performance was the appropriate remedy.
Source excerpt
Bafani Construction (PTY) Ltd V Road Fund Secretariat & Ano. (C of A (CIV) 85/2024) [2025] LSCA 40 (2 May 2025)
The High Court correctly held that while the arbitration clause ousted its jurisdiction over the merits, it retained jurisdiction to grant interim interdicts and spoliation orders under section 22 of the Arbitration Act 1980. The Road Fund Secretariat was a universitas personarum with standing to litigate. The appeal was without merit as the appellant obtained the relief it sought.
Source excerpt
Thabiso Tsehla & Ano. V Rethabile Jonathan (CCT/0568/2021) [2025] LSHC 87 (10 April 2025)
The High Court of Lesotho held that a land sale by one spouse was enforceable despite lack of the other spouse’s consent, and ordered transfer of the site.
Lirahalibonoe Qhobela v Hlakantso Makhekhene (C of A (CIV) 17/2023) [2023] LSCA 9 (17 November 2023)
The principal (appellant) is liable to the respondent for the agent's actions within the scope of authority, and cannot escape liability due to the agent's failure to remit the purchase price. The agreement of 12 April 2022 did not novate but merely varied the original agreement, requiring the respondent to pay an additional M6,000.00. The respondent is entitled to specific performance upon payment of the additional amount.
Source excerpt
Khoromeng v Manamolela (LC/APN/149/2014) [2022] LSHC 82 (2 June 2022)
Ministerial consent is not required for a valid sale agreement but is necessary for transfer of title. The applicant, having paid consideration and fulfilled contractual obligations, is entitled to specific performance compelling the seller to facilitate transfer of title. The sublease agreement entered into after the sale is invalid as the seller had already disposed of his rights. Respondents' objections on locus standi and ministerial consent are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Lemphane Diamond Mine v Minister of Mining (CCA/0016/2022) [2022] LSHC 8 (25 February 2022)
The High Court of Lesotho treated the matter as urgent, but refused interim suspension of a mining lease termination because the applicant had not properly shown irreparable harm or no alternative remedy.
Qing Jian Group Co Ltd v Procurement Unit and Others (CCA 122 of 2018) [2019] LSHC 11 (31 October 2019)
The applicant remained disqualified from the original tender process; the re-tender and subsequent award to the applicant were nullified by the prior court judgment, rendering any contract or offer legally void. The application for specific performance cannot succeed.
Source excerpt
Makepe v Thotanyane (CCA 70 of 15) [2017] LSHC 31 (31 August 2017)
The Commercial Court has jurisdiction to grant specific performance in a sale of land contract where the applicant has fulfilled contractual obligations and the respondent's alleged disputes of fact are fictitious and intended to delay proceedings. The applicant is entitled to the relief sought.
Source excerpt
Lesotho National Development Corporation v Maseru Business Machines (Pty) Ltd and Others (C of A (CIV) 38 of 2015) [2015] LSCA 48 (6 November 2015)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a landlord’s tacit hypothec, holding the dispute was moot after the machine had been removed.
Explore more
