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.
Ntsoane v Ntsoane (C of A (CIV) 19 of 12) [2012] LSCA 44 (19 October 2012)
Court of Appeal of Lesotho confirmed forfeiture of benefits in a divorce matter, but set aside the maintenance order and remitted the amount for fresh determination.
Makhethe v Makhethe (CTV/T 564 of 95) [1997] LSHC 86 (20 October 1997)
The defendant's attempt to restore conjugal rights was not genuine and was a ruse to avoid divorce; the plaintiff proved malicious desertion and is entitled to divorce. Ancillary matters are to be addressed on a later date.
Source excerpt
Mohale v Mohale (CIV/T 421 of 91) [1994] LSCA 60 (18 March 1994)
The High Court of Lesotho granted a divorce after finding no prior customary marriage was proved and holding that the defendant’s later relationship amounted to adultery.
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.
Tekane v Tekane (CIV/T 401 of 85) [1989] LSCA 129 (8 November 1989)
The High Court of Lesotho dismissed the husband’s divorce claim, accepted the wife’s counter-claim for judicial separation, and ordered interim maintenance.
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
Explore more
