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
Mokhele v Mokhele (CIV/T 48 of 14) [2019] LSHC 63 (14 November 2019)
The High Court of Lesotho granted forfeiture of marital benefits, finding the plaintiff made the substantial contributions to the joint estate after divorce for malicious desertion.
Mohanoe v Mohanoe and Another (C of A (CIV) 67 of 2014) [2015] LSCA 43 (6 November 2015)
The Court of Appeal of Lesotho struck the appeal off the roll for non-compliance with appeal rules, including failures over heads of argument and the record.
Mokokomali v Mokokomali (CIV/T 344 of 2000) [2001] LSCA 120 (5 October 2001)
Ancillary divorce relief in a Lesotho family case: custody, maintenance, matrimonial home occupation, and property division were determined in the children’s best interests.
Thakalekoala v Thakalekoala (CIV/APN/ 214 of 99) [2001] LSCA 132 (6 September 2001)
The court ordered equal division of the former spouses’ joint estate after divorce and declined to order forfeiture, with the area chief to oversee division.
Khoapha v Khoapha and Another (CIV/APN/252/98; CIV/T/38/93) [2000] LSCA 18 (1 March 2000)
The court held that two disputed properties formed part of the former spouses’ joint estate and must devolve under the liquidator’s plan of division.
Thamae v Thamae (CIV/T 591 of 88) [1995] LSCA 38 (14 February 1995)
Divorce granted for malicious desertion; the child Malefane Paulus Thamae was held legitimate, forfeiture was ordered, and property division was reserved for valuation.
Monaphathi v Monaphathi (C of A (CIV) 16 of 1981) [1990] LSCA 22 (26 January 1990)
The Lesotho Court of Appeal held that a forfeiture order after divorce in community of property must be implemented by valuing the joint estate and the parties’ contributions.
Monapathi (born Sennane) v Monaphathi (CIV/T 104 of 87) [1989] LSCA 106 (7 September 1989)
The defendant, having maliciously deserted the plaintiff, must forfeit the house, all furniture, and the motor vehicle bought by the plaintiff. Custody of the daughter is awarded to the plaintiff and custody of the son to the defendant, based on the children's preferences and welfare. The defendant is ordered to pay maintenance for the daughter and contribute to the plaintiff's legal costs.
Source excerpt
Khali v Khali (CIV/APN 102 of 84) [1984] LSCA 81 (25 June 1984)
The High Court of Lesotho refused to vary a divorce settlement or commit the respondent for contempt, but ordered maintenance to be paid through the Registrar.
Explore more
