Land Administration Authority v keketso Ketsi (LC/A/0012/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 250 (29 September 2025)

# Land Administration Authority v keketso Ketsi (LC/A/0012/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 250 (29 September 2025) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: Land Administration Authority v keketso Ketsi \(LC/A/0012/2023ND\) …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29) [ Download PDF (280.7 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (280.7 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/250/eng@2025-09-29/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Land Administration Authority v keketso Ketsi (LC/A/0012/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 250 (29 September 2025) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 4 / - Citation Land Administration Authority v keketso Ketsi (LC/A/0012/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 250 (29 September 2025) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2025] LSHC 250 Copy Hearing date 8 September 2025 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Court registry [Land Division](/judgments/LSHC/LSHC-land-division/) Case number LC/A/0012/2023ND Judges [Dr. Shale J](/judgments/all/?judges=Dr.%20Shale%20J) Judgment date 29 September 2025 Language English ##### __Collections * [Case indexes](/taxonomy/case-indexes) * [Commercial](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial) * [Property Law](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-property-law) * [Land](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-property-law-land) * [Land Dispute](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-property-law-land-land-dispute) Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO** **(NORTHERN DIVISION)** **HELD AT LERIBE LC/A/0012/2023ND** **In the matter between:** **LAND ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY APPLICANT** **AND** **KEKETSO ELLIOT KETSI RESPONDENT** **__________________________________________________________________** Neutral citation: Land Administration Authority v Keketso Elliot Ketsi [[2025] LSHC 284](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/284) LC/A/0012/2023ND (29 September 2025) **CORAM: DR I. SHALE J** **HEARD : 8 September 2025** **DELIVERED: 29 September 2025** **_SUMMARY_** _Jurisdiction – Land Court – whether recovery of ground rent falls within disputes concerning land under section 73 of the Land Act 2010 – obligation to pay ground rent is statutory and arises from landholding – Land Court has jurisdiction._ **ANNOTATIONS:** **Cited Cases** * _Tentenkie Mohapeloa & 2 Others v Makibinyane Mohapeloa_ C of A (CIV) 69/2024 [[2025] LSCA 29](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2025/29) (2 May 2025) * _Mary Leteng Likhabiso Tau v Morongoe Sootho & Others_, LC/APN/0021/24 [[2025] LSHC 68](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/68) (21 February 2025) * _Alice Mphutlane v Mosa Seoli_ LC/APN/18/2010 [[2014] LSHC 98](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2014/98) (25 November 2014) * _Lephema v Total Lesotho (Pty) Ltd & Others _C of A (CIV) 36 of 2014 * _Moletsane v Thamae_ C of A (CIV) 23 of 2017 [[2018] LSCA 25](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2018/25) (7 December 2018) **PRELIMINARY RULING** **INTRODUCTION** [1] The applicant, the Land Administration Authority (LAA), instituted proceedings against the respondent seeking payment of Thirty-Four Thousand, Two hundred and Ninety-Six Maloti and Ninety-Five Lisente (M34, 296.95) being ground rent allegedly due in respect of a site allocated to the respondent in terms of the Land Act 2010. [2] In response, the respondent raised a point of law _in limine_ contending that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. According to the respondent, the claim for ground rent is contractual or commercial in nature, and does not constitute a dispute “concerning land” as envisaged by the Land Act 2010. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** [3] The crisp issue for determination is whether the Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an action by the LAA for recovery of ground rent. **THE LAW** [4] The jurisdiction of the Land Court is circumscribed by section 73 of the Land Act 2010 (as amended), which provides that the Land Court has “ _…_ _exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all disputes, actions and proceedings concerning land._ ” The jurisdiction was further clarified by the Land (Amendment) Act 2012, which inserted the word “ _all”_ before the word dispute. In **Tentenkie Mohapeloa & 2 Others v Makibinyane Mohapeloa** the Court of Appeal stated that this insertion affirms the comprehensive character of the jurisdiction conferred. It stated further that this notwithstanding, _the provision must be interpreted contextually and purposively. The jurisdiction conferred is broad but not without limit. It must be understood to extend only to disputes which, in their legal essence, relate to rights or interest in land as recognized or governed by the land Act.**[1]**_ [5] The Court went further to interrogate other sections of the Land Act regarding jurisdiction such as section 18(3), 20(2), 22, 36(3) and (4) and 72 which specify the courts before which certain categories of disputes may be brought. It stated that: _these provisions reflect a broader legislative scheme under which disputes deriving from**statutory rights or obligations in land are reserved for the specialist land courts** , whether at the national or district level._[2] (My emphasis) [6] In **Mary Leteng Likhabiso Tau v Morongoe Sootho & Others, **Banyane J reiterated that section 73 of the Land Act is a general provision specifying the purpose for which these courts have been established but is not the only provision which outlines the scope of jurisdiction for these courts.[3] [7] Cognisant of the confusion that arises when categorising claims, especially those involving money such as the current one, the Court of Appeal in the **Mohapeloa**(supra) discussed the principles on jurisdiction as previously stated in the cases of **Lephema v Total Lesotho (Pty) Ltd & Others**[4]** **and **Moletsane v Thamae**[5]**** in which it was respectively stressed that not every dispute touching on land belongs to the Land Court and that where a claimant asserts rights or protects title, then the claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Land Court. The Court went further that jurisdiction of the Land Court depends on the legal character of the claim. Where the right asserted arises from the Land Act such as title, possession, use, or obligations created by statute, the matter properly falls within the Land Court. [8] Conversely, where the claim is rooted in contract, delict, or equity, and land is only incidental, jurisdiction lies with the ordinary courts. It stated further that the relief sought is also a guide in that vindicatory or declaratory remedies tied to statutory land rights point to Land Court jurisdiction, while contractual remedies such as damages or restitution fall outside it. [9] Payment of ground rent is provided for in section 77 of the Land Act which provides as follows: ### ### _77\. Ground rent_ _(1)____There shall be payable ground rent in respect of leases, unless a lessee is exempted from such ground rent as the Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, determine._ _(2)____Ground rent shall be paid in such installments and at such intervals of time during the year as the Commissioner shall determine or as is provided in the lease._ _(3)____Ground rent shall be paid to the Commissioner or an authorized officer at the_ ___office of the Commissioner or at any other place which_ ___the Commissioner determines or which may be prescribed._ _(4)____In assessing the amount of ground rent, the Commissioner shall have regard to_ _:_ _(a)the area and location of the land which is the subject of the lease;_ _(b)the use of land permitted by the lease;_ _(c)the value of land as evidenced by the assignment of leases and other dispositions of land in the market in the area where the lease has been granted._ **ANALYSIS** [10] The respondent’s submission that the claim is contractual or commercial in nature overlooks the statutory foundation of ground rent. Ground rent is not a term freely negotiated between parties, but rather a statutory obligation attaching to the holding of land pursuant to the Land Act 2010. This is therefore a dispute concerning the terms of a land allocation and the rights and obligations associated with it, which falls within the purview of the Land Act. [11] Applied to the present case, the principle in **Mohapeloa** makes it clear that jurisdiction turns on the source of the right. The obligation to pay ground rent is not contractual, but a statutory condition attaching to a lease under the Land Act 2010. This is also supported by Banyane J’s reasoning in **Makhapetla Mabote v Maseru City Council & Another**[6] wherein she referred to the Court of Appeal decision in **Moletsane v Thamae (supra)** that the Land Courts are creatures of statute and therefore derive their jurisdiction within the four corners of the Land Act; anything outside the Act, falls outside their jurisdiction.[7] [12] Ground rent is due to be paid to the LAA which is a statutory body responsible for land registration and administration. This is different from a private arrangement where one pays rentals or purchase price to another individual or company as was the case in the **Mohapeloa** case. [13] It follows that a dispute concerning failure to pay ground rent is inextricably linked to rights and obligations in respect of land. Such a dispute therefore falls squarely within the phrase “disputes concerning land” under section 73 of the Land Act. [14] Further, the jurisdiction of this Court has, in prior matters, been interpreted broadly to ensure that disputes arising directly from landholding and its incidents are adjudicated here, and not fragmented between various fora. **CONCLUSION** [15] I therefore find that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present claim. The point of law raised by the respondent is accordingly dismissed. The matter shall proceed to be determined on the merits. Costs shall be costs in the cause. **ORDER** [16] On the basis of the foregoing, the following order is made: 1. The respondent’s point of law is dismissed. 2. The Land Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 3. Costs to be costs in the cause. **___________________________** **Dr. I. Shale J** **Judge of the High Court** For Appellant : Advocate N. Malunga For Respondent : Advocate Mahlehle * * * [1] _Tentenkie Mohapeloa & 2 Others v Makibinyane Mohapeloa _C of A (CIV) 69/2024 [[2025] LSCA 29](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2025/29) (2 May 2025) at para 12 [2] Ibid para 13 [3] _Mary Leteng Likhabiso Tau v Morongoe Sootho & Others, _LC/APN/0021/24 [[2025] LSHC 68](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/68) (21 February 2025) at para 11; see also _Alice Mphutlane v Mosa Seoli_ LC/APN/18/2010 [[2014] LSHC 98](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2014/98) (25 November 2014) [4] _Lephema v Total Lesotho (Pty) Ltd & Others _C of A (CIV) 36 of 2014 [5] _Moletsane v Thamae_ C of A (CIV) 23 of 2017 [[2018] LSCA 25](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2018/25) (7 December 2018) [6] Makhapetla Mabote v Maseru City Council & Another [2024] LSHC Lan 235 (12 June 2024) [7] Ibid para 26 #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >