Daniel Rantle v Methodist Church of Southern Africa & Others (C of A (CIV) 24 of 2016)

• Author: M. Hlaele
• Date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC-bf5c41a3b
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Record Number: lesotho_v25_n1_a10
• Pages: 163-171

PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE

Hlaele, M.⃰

DANIEL RANTLE V METHODIST CHURCH OF SOUTHERN

AFRICA AND OTHERS (C OF A (CIV) 24 OF 2016)

BACKGOUND

This is an appeal brought before the Court of Appeal by the

appellant who was unsuccessful in the High Court in his bid to stop

the respondents from ejecting him from a property described in the

judgment as “certain Ecclesiastical site described as Site number 81,

Stadium, Maseru Reserve”.

1

A short version of the facts of the case

is that the appellant was an unsuccessful contender in the District

Land Court of Maseru. As a result of the judgment of the District

land Court, he was ordered to vacate or in the words of the

judgment be ejected from the premises he occupied. Upon service of

the judgment for execution, his legal representatives filed two

separate motions which applications had the same effect. One was

filed in the District Land Court and another in the High Court. The

effect of the applications was to request the Courts to stay the

ejectment proceedings.

The High Court application was moved ex parte. A rule nisi was

granted returnable on a date stated by the court in its order. Once

the ex parte order was issued, the appellant withdrew its application

before the District Land Court. The appellant had also sought,

before the High Court, an order declaring District Land Court Rule

109(3) to be invalid, null and void ab initio for being inconsistent

with the common Law principle of automatic stay of judgment

⃰ LLB(NUL); LLM(UOFS): Lecturer, Faculty of Law (NUL).

1

Para [2] of the judgment.