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
Malokotsa v Seqhee (CIV/T 565 of 18) [2020] LSHC 30 (5 March 2020)
High Court of Lesotho held that a land dispute belonged in the Land Court and upheld an exception where lack of jurisdiction was apparent from the pleadings.
Lesotho Observatory Foundation v Hata-Butle (Pty) Ltd (CIV/APN 19) [2019] LSHC 14 (5 September 2019)
The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the dispute concerned title to land, which falls within the Land Courts’ specialist jurisdiction.
Hlasa v Patsi (CIV/A 22; C of A (CIV)) [2016] LSCA 43 (28 October 2016)
The Office of a Chief acts as a mediator and not as a court of law; its rulings are not legally binding and do not preclude parties from seeking recourse in the Local Court. The dispute did not concern title to land and thus did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Court or District Land Court.
Source excerpt
Hlasa v Patsi (CIV/A 22; C of A (CIV)) [2016] LSCA 144 (28 October 2016)
The Office of the Chief does not exercise quasi-judicial authority in disputes between community members; its rulings are not legally binding and do not preclude parties from instituting proceedings afresh in the Local Court. The dispute did not concern title to land and thus did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Court or District Land Court.
Source excerpt
Hlasa v Patsi (CIV/A 22; C of A (CIV)) [2016] LSCA 145 (28 October 2016)
A ruling by the Office of a Chief has no legal effect and does not preclude a party from instituting proceedings afresh in a local court; the local court had jurisdiction as the dispute did not concern title to land or rights overriding title.
Source excerpt
Hlasa v Patsi (CIV/A 22; C of A (CIV)) [2016] LSCA 143 (28 October 2016)
A ruling by the Office of a Chief has no legal effect as it is not a court of law but an institution of conciliation and mediation; therefore, a party dissatisfied with such a ruling is entitled to institute proceedings afresh in a local court. The dispute in question did not concern title to land and thus did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Court or District Land Court.
Source excerpt
Bushman v Lesotho Development and Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (C of A (CIV) 3 of 2015) [2015] LSCA 4 (7 August 2015)
The Court of Appeal set aside a Land Court order that summarily upheld prescription and lis pendens, remitting the dispute for hearing in accordance with the rules.
R v Rantalane (CRI/T 34 of 92) [1994] LSCA 23 (8 February 1994)
The accused is guilty of culpable homicide because, although he initiated the confrontation and armed himself with a spear, there is insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt of a subjective intention to kill. However, he ought reasonably to have foreseen that his actions could result in death.
Source excerpt
Explore more
