Lesotho Case Law

Moeketsi Mohlahatsa & Ano. V The Commander LDF & Ano. (C of A (CIV/REV) No. 39/2025)

Moeketsi Mohlahatsa & Ano. V The Commander LDF & Ano. (C of A (CIV/REV) No. 39/2025) [2025] LSCA 63 (7 November 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV/REV) No. 39/2025

The Court of Appeal held that delayed review was fatal to the gratuity claim but not to the pension claim, which was a continuing wrong. The matter was remitted.

• Unreasonable delay
• Review of administrative action
• Continuing cause of action
• Gratuity vs pension distinction
• Prescription
• Declaratory relief

Read case analysis

Hlomohang Morokole & 4 Others V The Principal Secretary , Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations & 2 Others (C of A (CIV) No 15/2025)

Hlomohang Morokole & 4 Others V The Principal Secretary , Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations & 2 Others (C of A (CIV) No 15/2025) [2025] LSCA 48 (7 November 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) No 15/2025

The Court of Appeal held that prescription was not properly raised, the salary-conversion exclusion was not shown to be contractual, and the High Court ignored key review grounds.

• Judicial review
• Prescription
• Incorporation of contractual terms
• Diplomatic service
• Unequal treatment
• Executive policy reviewability

Read case analysis

Teboho Modia V COMPOL (C of A (CIV) 76/2024)

Teboho Modia V COMPOL (C of A (CIV) 76/2024) [2025] LSCA 34 (2 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) 76/2024

The Court of Appeal held that a prescription plea in a malicious arrest claim could not be decided without oral evidence and remitted the matter to the High Court.

• Malicious arrest
• Prescription
• Damages
• Remittal
• Judicial caution in language
• Malicious-arrest

Read case analysis

Moeketsi Mohlahatsa V The Commander, Lesotho Defence Force (CIV/APN/0094/2023)

Moeketsi Mohlahatsa V The Commander, Lesotho Defence Force (CIV/APN/0094/2023) [2025] LSHC 232 (10 February 2025)

Court

High Court

Case number

CIV/APN/0094/2023

The High Court of Lesotho held that a review application was not barred by statutory prescription, but was dismissed for unreasonable delay of 13 and 14 years.

• Prescription
• Judicial review
• Government liability
• Unreasonable delay
• Judicial-review
• Government-liability

Read case analysis

Naha Mahao V Lekhooa Moepi & 5 Others (C of A (CIV) No 52/2024)

Naha Mahao V Lekhooa Moepi & 5 Others (C of A (CIV) No 52/2024) [2024] LSCA 38 (1 November 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) No 52/2024

The Court of Appeal held that prescription could not be decided without evidence on disputed facts about alleged interruption during settlement talks.

• Prescription
• Special plea
• Interruption of prescription
• Damages for assault and torture
• Special-plea
• Interruption-of-prescription

Read case analysis

Masentle Mpobole & Ano. V The Principal Secretary- Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Employment & 2 Others. (CIV/APN/0193/2023)

Masentle Mpobole & Ano. V The Principal Secretary- Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Employment & 2 Others. (CIV/APN/0193/2023) [2023] LSHC 256 (29 August 2023)

Court

High Court

Case number

CIV/APN/0193/2023

The applicants' claims arose from their employment contracts and should have been brought within two years from their respective dates of appointment. The prescriptive period under section 6 of the Act is mandatory and not subject to interruption by internal communications. The claims were filed long after the expiry of the prescriptive period and are therefore dismissed as prescribed.

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Employment contracts
• Government liability
• Salary grading
• Mandatory interdicts

Read case analysis

Pitsi v Commander Lesotho Defence Force (CIV/T/395/2021)

Pitsi v Commander Lesotho Defence Force (CIV/T/395/2021) [2022] LSHC 2 (21 February 2022)

Court

High Court

Case number

CIV/T/395/2021

The High Court dismissed a condonation application brought after a claim against the State was filed outside the two-year statutory period under the Government Contracts and Proceedings Act.

• Condonation
• Prescription
• Statutory limitation
• Statutory-limitation
• Government-liability
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Mafereka v Commissioner of Police (C of A (CIV) 56 of 2019)

Mafereka v Commissioner of Police (C of A (CIV) 56 of 2019) [2020] LSCA 39 (30 October 2020)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) 56 of 2019

The special plea of prescription was wrongly upheld because the appellant's claim was not based on acts performed 'in pursuance of' the Police Act but rather 'in the course and scope of employment,' and the continuing wrongful detention of the vehicle meant the cause of action only arose upon its release in 2012. The respondents failed to prove the acts were in pursuance of the Act, and thus the limitation period did not apply.

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Limitation of actions
• Vicarious liability
• Statutory interpretation
• Damages against police

Read case analysis

Moeko v Moeketsi (C of A (CIV) 16 of 2019)

Moeko v Moeketsi (C of A (CIV) 16 of 2019) [2019] LSCA 34 (1 November 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

C of A (CIV) 16 of 2019

The Court of Appeal held that the Land Court wrongly dismissed a land application on prescription and failed to follow the Land Court Rules, remitting the matter for proper determination.

• Jurisdiction
• Prescription
• Procedure in land disputes
• Costs
• Land-law
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Mntambo v Lesotho National General Insurance Ltd (CIV/T 259 of 18)

Mntambo v Lesotho National General Insurance Ltd (CIV/T 259 of 18) [2019] LSHC 53 (12 September 2019)

Court

High Court

Case number

CIV/T 259 of 18

The decisive act for interrupting prescription is the service of summons, not their issuance. Since the summons were served after the statutory two-year period, the claim was prescribed and the court could not grant relief.

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Motor vehicle insurance
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis