EXO.EXPO (PTY) Ltd V Retsebile Nkalai (CCT/0007/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 247 (22 September 2025)

# EXO.EXPO (PTY) Ltd V Retsebile Nkalai (CCT/0007/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 247 (22 September 2025) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: EXO.EXPO \(PTY\) Ltd V Retsebile Nkalai \(CCT/0007/2023ND\) …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22) [ Download PDF (488.4 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (488.4 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/247/eng@2025-09-22/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### EXO.EXPO (PTY) Ltd V Retsebile Nkalai (CCT/0007/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 247 (22 September 2025) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 9 / - Citation EXO.EXPO (PTY) Ltd V Retsebile Nkalai (CCT/0007/2023ND) [2025] LSHC 247 (22 September 2025) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2025] LSHC 247 Copy Hearing date 14 August 2025 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Court registry [Commercial Division](/judgments/LSHC/LSHC-commercial-division/) Case number CCT/0007/2023ND Judges [Dr. Shale J](/judgments/all/?judges=Dr.%20Shale%20J) Judgment date 22 September 2025 Language English ##### __Collections * [Case indexes](/taxonomy/case-indexes) * [Commercial](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial) * [Contract Law](/taxonomy/case-indexes/case-indexes-commercial-contract-law) Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO** **(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)** **HELD AT LERIBE CCT/0007/2023ND** **In the matter between:** **EXO.EXPO (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF** **AND** **RETSEBILE NKALAI DEFENDANT** Neutral citation: Exo.Expo (PTY) LTD v Retsebile Nkalai [[2025] LSHC 249](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/249) CCT/0007/2023ND (22nd September 2025) **CORAM: DR I. SHALE J** **HEARD : 14 th August 2025** **DELIVERED: 22 nd September 2025** **_SUMMARY_** _Law of contract: onus of proof of the contract, its terms and breach by the other party – proof of loss of earnings from breach of contract –Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate loss not to be attributed to defendant. – Plaintiff’s claim partially succeeds_ **ANNOTATIONS:** **Cited Cases** **Lesotho** * _Botsane v Commissioner of Police & Another_ C of A (CIV) No. 23 of 2011 * _Lesotho Bank v Khabo_ C of A (CIV) 22 of 2003 [[2004] LSCA 6](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2004/6) (7 October 2004)__ * _Limema v Commissioner of Police_ _CIV/T407/2014 [2021]LSHC 8 (18 February 2021)._ * **_M & C Construction International v Lesotho Housing and Land Corporation (CoA (CIV) 09 of 2015) [[2016] LSCA 4](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2016/4)_** * _Makhomo Thetsane v Moeketsi Thetsane & Another __LC/APN/0011/2022[[2024] LSCH 163](/akn/ls/judgment/lsch/2024/163) (22 March 2024)._ * _Mohajane v First National Bank – Lesotho CIV/T/926/2020[[2022] LSHC 61](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2022/61) (18 August 2022)_ * **__**_Molupe v Lesotho National General Insurance Company Ltd_ _CIV/T/570/2018[[2021] LSHC 27](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2021/27) (15 December 2021)_ * _Monate v Mefane_ (C of A (CIV) 19 of 2017) [[2018] LSCA 11](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2018/11) (7 December 2018) * _Moshoeshoe v Lesotho National General Insurance Company Ltd_ _CIV/T/0172/2016[[2024] LSHC 43](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/43) (8 May 2024)_ * **_Qhalane v Makhetha_****(CCT/0178/2021)[[2023] LSHC 1](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/1) __(16 February 2023)** * _Surties Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ministry of Health & Others (CCT/122/2013) [[2017] LSHC 15](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2017/15)_ **South Africa** * _Munster Estates (Pty) Ltd v Killarney Hills (Pty) Ltd_ 1979 (1) SA 621 (A) * _Pillay v Krishna_ 1946 AD 946 at 952 **Text Books** * Christie & Bradfield, 2022 _Law of Contract in South Africa_ , (8th ed.) * Neethling & Portgieter, 2022 _The law of delict_ (8thed.) **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** [1] This matter concerns a contractual dispute arising from the hire of mobile toilets by the Defendant from the Plaintiff, a company in the business of leasing such amenities. The central issue is whether the Defendant breached the agreement by failing to return the toilets and thereby became liable for further rental payments. The matter also touched on a counterclaim initially raised by the Defendant, relating to damage to her vehicle, but such counterclaim was later withdrawn. [2] The prayers sought were couched as follows: 1. Payment of an amount of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Six Hundred Maloti (M120 600.00) being loss of earnings from normal daily hire of the two mobile toilets from the 21st September 2022 to the day of 31st January 2023. 2. 18.5% interest on the principal sum claimed from the date of issue of summons to the date of final payment. 3. Payment of transport costs in the amount of Four Hundred Maloti (M400.00) for recovery of the toilets. 4. Costs of suit. 5. Further and/or alternative relief. [3] Defendant entered her appearance to defend and a plea and also lodged a counter-claim in which she claimed: 1. The Plaintiff’s employee acted negligently whilst offloading the toilets from the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff is vicariously liable for the said damage. 2. The Plaintiff be ordered to reimburse the Defendant for the repairs to her car and the damage negligently caused by the Plaintiff’s employee in the amount of Forty-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Three Maloti, Fourteen Lisente (M45 883.14). 3. Interest thereon at the rate of 12.5%. 4. Costs of suit on attorney and client scale in the event of opposition. 5. Further and/or alternative relief. [4] The parties agreed at the pre-trial conference that the key factual disputes to be resolved at the trial were: 1. Whether the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s loss of earnings. 2. Whether Plaintiff’s employee was negligent. 3. Whether the Plaintiff is liable to the Defendant for the damage of to her vehicle. [5] At the commencement of the trial, the Defendant withdrew her counterclaim, and the Plaintiff withdrew the portion of the claim concerning M400 for transport. Therefore, the only issue before this court is whether Defendant is liable for Plaintiff’s loss of earnings. The Plaintiff’s case was supported by two witnesses while the Defendant opted to close her case and not to testify or call any witnesses. **PLAINTIFF’S CASE** [6] The Plaintiff’s two witnesses were both its employees at the time of the incident being Tšeliso Thebane (PW1) and Motlalepula Ramonoko (PW2). Both testified that Plaintiff is a sanitation services company based at Mapholaneng in the district of Mokhotlong with its headquarters in Maseru. They both stated that on 21st September 2022, the Defendant hired two mobile toilets for an event which was to take place at her premises. PW1, testified that the Plaintiff's vehicle was unavailable on that day, and, given that the Defendant was a regular customer, him and Defendant telephonically agreed that she could use her own vehicle to collect the toilets. The telephonic agreement as well as its term in relation to collection of the toilets was not disputed. What Defendant in her papers and during PW1’s cross examination disputed was that the agreement also extended to return of the toilets by Defendant to Plaintiff’s business. [7] PW2 testified that the toilets were loaded on the Defendant’s vehicle and transported to her premises by one Selometsi, who was identified by PW2 as the defendant’s driver. He testified further that he accompanied the driver. The reasons for accompanying the driver were however not clear as PW1 said it was to collect rental fees from Defendant while PW2, under cross examination conceded that Selometsi had informed him that the rental fee would be paid upon return of the toilets after the function, a day or two later. The Defendant’s counsel put it to PW2 he accompanied the driver because he was on duty to offload the said toilets. PW2’s testimony is also that he observed that the driver appeared intoxicated and that during offloading, the toilets were handled negligently, causing damage to the vehicle. Conversely, Defendant’s case is that PW2, while executing his duties as Plaintiff’s employee damaged the vehicle during offloading. I have decided not to analyse this part of PW2’s evidence since it relates to damage to the vehicle, a counter-claim which Defendant has withdrawn. [8] Other facts which were established during Plaintiff’s case are that Defendant, through her legal representation submitted a letter dated 27th September 2022, demanding that the Plaintiff collect its toilets. Both Plaintiff’s witnesses denied knowledge of such letter as it was addressed to the head office in Maseru while they are based in Mokhotlong. Advocate Selimo however, conceded that the said letter was written and received by Plaintiff and also that no response was furnished thereto. **DEFENDANT’S CASE** [9] At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Advocate Lesaoana indicated that Defendant intends to close her case without taking the stand or calling any witnesses as Plaintiff has failed to prove any of its claims against Defendant. [10] The legal position is that even where Defendant decides not to testify, the Plaintiff nonetheless bears the primary _onus_ to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of the contract, the breach complained of, and the loss allegedly suffered. Where the Plaintiff fails in this regard, the claim cannot succeed notwithstanding the defendant’s silence ( see: _**Makhomo Thetsane v Moeketsi Thetsane & Another**_****[1]****). However, once the Plaintiff has led credible evidence establishing _a prima facie case_ , a Defendant who chooses not to testify runs the risk that judgment may be granted against him, as the court is entitled to accept the Plaintiff’s version as uncontroverted and may draw adverse inferences from the defendant’s failure to rebut evidence peculiarly within his knowledge (_**Munster Estates (Pty) Ltd v Killarney Hills (Pty) Ltd)**._[2] [11] Our courts have consistently held that unchallenged evidence which is credible and consistent may suffice to discharge the onus of proof (_**Seutloali v Commissioner Lesotho Correctional Services).**_[3] It follows that where, as here, the Defendant has closed its case without answering the Plaintiff’s allegations of breach and resulting business loss, the court must assess whether the Plaintiff’s evidence, standing alone, sufficiently discharges the burden of proof. **APPLICABLE LAW** **_Onus_****to prove breach of contract** [12] The foundation of the Plaintiff’s claim is that there was a breach of contract. The applicable legal principles include _onus_ to prove the existence of a contract, its terms and that there was breach by the other party, which resulted in loss of earnings. The court must also take into account the standard of proof to determine whether Plaintiff has discharged the said _onus._ [13] The law on _onus_ of proof in breach of contract cases is settled. The general principle established in **Pillay v Krishna** and later affirmed in by our courts is that “ _he who alleges must prove”_.[4] Accordingly, the Plaintiff bears the duty to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a valid contract, its terms, performance or readiness to perform, and the defendant’s breach. This principle was reaffirmed by Ramodibedi P in _**Botsane v Commissioner of Police**_ where the Court held that: _Now it is a basic and fundamental of our law following Pillay v Krishna and another, which has consistently been followed in this jurisdiction that he who alleges must prove.**[5]**_ [14] Similarly, in _**Moshoeshoe v Lesotho National General Insurance Company Ltd** _ the Court stressed that the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but rather that the Plaintiff’s version must be more probable than not.[6] Once the Plaintiff has discharged this duty, the _onus_ shifts to the Defendant to prove any special defence, such as impossibility, novation, or illegality. This principle, well established in Lesotho jurisprudence, accords with the Roman-Dutch common law position as articulated in _**Pillay v Krishna**_ _,_[7] and has been consistently applied by our courts, including in** __**_**Molupe v Lesotho National General Insurance Company Ltd**_ _**[8]**_ and _**Limema v Commissioner of Police**_[9]_****__to mention but few._ **Loss of earnings** [15] Where the Plaintiff claims loss of earnings or business opportunities due to the defendant’s breach of contract, the _onus_ rests squarely on the Plaintiff to prove, on a balance of probabilities, not only the existence of the contract and the breach, but also that the loss flowed directly from that breach, was reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was formed, and can be quantified with reasonable precision. [16] In **Qhalane v Makhetha** ,[10] the Court held that claims for lost business profits must reflect “**positive interesse”** —actual or prospective losses the Plaintiff would have enjoyed but for the breach—and stressed the necessity of explaining how the figure for such loss was calculated, citing **M & C Construction International v Lesotho Housing and Land Corporation** on the principle of placing the Plaintiff in the position they would have occupied with proper performance.[11] In the above case, the Arbitrator rejected a substantial claim for loss of opportunity where the claimant failed to produce financial statements or evidence that such loss was within the parties’ contemplation at the time of contracting. [17] The Plaintiff must therefore adduce cogent and credible evidence such as financial records, expert valuation, or established expectations to enable the court to assess the quantum of loss. Finally, the loss claimed must not be remote and must satisfy the test of foreseeability as applied in Lesotho, in line with general Roman-Dutch contract principles. **PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS ON THE LAW** [18] The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has misconceived the nature of the claim by treating it as a delictual matter requiring proof of loss of profits through detailed financial records. The Plaintiff submits that the case is purely contractual, and the primary remedy sought is **specific performance****,** not delictual damages. According to the Plaintiff, the parties expressly agreed that if the Defendant failed to return the hired toilets, the consequence would be the continued accrual of the agreed daily hire rate until the toilets were returned. He argues that it is clear from the pleadings and evidence by PW1 and PW2 that this term was at the heart of the agreement and such was not shaken under cross examination. [19] It is submitted that under the law of contract, breach of contract arises from the non-fulfilment of a contractual obligation, and the primary remedy is enforcement of the contract through specific performance. Authorities such as Christie,[12] and Neethling,[13] were cited by Advocate Selimo to emphasise that contractual remedies differ fundamentally from delictual remedies. The Plaintiff argues that once the contract, its terms, and breach are proven, the court’s task is to enforce the bargain struck by the parties, including any agreed consequences of breach. [20] The Plaintiff therefore submits that Defendant’s continued retention of the toilets constituted breach, and by operation of the parties’ agreement, the Defendant is liable for payment of the agreed daily hire for the entire period of non-return. [21] The Plaintiff stresses that the determinative issue is simply **who bore the duty to return the toilets under the contract**? Advocate Selimo argued that Plaintiff’s witnesses were consistent under cross-examination that the obligation rested with the Defendant, and their evidence was not shaken. The Plaintiff accordingly submits that it has proven its case on a balance of probabilities and is entitled to the contractual remedy of specific performance in the form of payment of the agreed daily hire for the duration of the breach. [22] With regard to failure to collect the toilets upon receipt of a letter of demand from Defendant’s lawyers, Advocate Selimo conceded that this amounts to failure to mitigate the loss which Plaintiff ultimately suffered. He stated that in the case that the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to collect the toilets when it was clear that the relationship between the parties had broken down as negligent, then the Court should at least award Plaintiff damages for loss of business for seven (7) days from the date of hire to the date of letter of demand. He insisted that because the Defendant did not testify, the Plaintiff’s version remains uncontroverted and therefore the court should take it as the true and only version. **DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS ON THE LAW** [23] The Defendant submits that in civil proceedings the burden of proof rests on the Plaintiff, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in _**Moqeneheloa Monate v Morapeli Mefane**_ ,[14] _**Botsane v Commissioner of Police**_ ,[15] and the long-standing principle in _**Pillay v Krishna**_.[16] It is therefore for the Plaintiff, who claims damages for loss of earnings, to prove the alleged loss on a balance of probabilities. [24] On the law relating to damages, reliance is placed on _**Pheleka Qhalane v Mokuena Makhetha**_[17] and _**M & C Construction International v Lesotho Housing and Land Corporation**_,[18] which confirm that damages for breach of contract are assessed on the basis of _positive interesse_ —the Plaintiff is entitled to be placed in the position he would have occupied had the contract been performed. This means that damages for loss of earnings (or profit) must be proved by evidence of actual and prospective loss, not mere speculation. [25] Advocate Lesaoana argued that in the present case the Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the claimed amount of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Six Hundred Maloti (M120,600.00). She argued that in cross-examination of both Plaintiff witnesses, no explanation was provided as to how this figure was calculated, nor was there evidence of running expenses, taxes, wages, or the frequency of hiring the toilets. She stated that in the absence of such evidence, the claim remains unproved, and must be treated in terms of the Court of Appeal’s approach in _**Lesotho Bank v Khabo**_** _,_** which held that where evidence is available but not tendered, a Plaintiff should be non-suited.[19] [26] Further, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate its loss. Reliance is placed on _**Surties Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ministry of Health & Others**_,[20] where the Court reduced damages because the Plaintiff could have taken steps to reduce its losses. She argued that in _casu_ , although the Defendant wrote a letter of demand six days after the agreed return date inviting the Plaintiff to collect the toilets, the Plaintiff delayed collection for about five months and no evidence was given as to whether alternative arrangements could have been made. [27] In conclusion, the Defendant prays that the Plaintiff’s claim be dismissed for failure to prove loss of earnings. Alternatively, if the court finds that the Plaintiff has established a claim, it is urged to reduce the quantum to reflect the failure to mitigate, and to deny interest at the rate claimed. The Defendant also seeks costs of suit at a high scale, submitting that suit was unnecessary and warrants the court’s displeasure. **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** [28] The Plaintiff has led direct evidence that the Defendant hired two toilets and agreed to return them. The Plaintiff’s employee, PW2, accompanied the driver to the defendant's home and observed the offloading. It is common cause that the toilets were not returned until 28th February 2023, despite a letter from the Defendant dated 27th September 2022 requesting their collection. [29] While there is a factual dispute as to whether the Plaintiff or Defendant was responsible for returning the toilets, the evidence supports the Plaintiff's position that the agreement was for Defendant to collect and also return the toilets. The Defendant did not testify to rebut this evidence. On a balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff has proven that the Defendant retained possession of the toilets beyond the agreed date without justification. [30] However, the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of use from 21st September 2022 to 31st January 2023 is not supported by evidence. There is no evidence as to why Plaintiff failed to collect the toilets when it became clear that Defendant was in breach of their initial agreement and that she had also made a demand for Plaintiff to collect the toilets and to contribute towards repair her damaged vehicle. [31] As far as the existence of a contract and its terms for Defendant to collect and return the toilets, the Plaintiff evidence is clear and there is nothing to compare it with as there is no evidence from the defence. I therefore believe that this was the arrangement. [32] With regard to loss of earnings, I find that proof through financial statements is not necessary because there was a contract and the contract was clear that the costs of hire for the toilets were M450.00 per day. The parties have agreed that for purposes of the present case, ordinary terms of hire did not apply with regard to transportation of the toilets. However, there was no evidence that the ordinary term that the toilets continue to rent for the period that they remain in the client’s possession was also waived. [33] In the present matter, however, the Plaintiff’s claim is not one for damages for loss of profit, but for specific performance of a contractual term. The agreement itself provided that, should the toilets not be returned on the agreed date, they would continue to attract the daily hire charge. This is a clear and ascertainable contractual remedy: it is neither speculative nor dependent on uncertain calculations of profit and loss. The rate was agreed upfront, and the only question was whether the Defendant retained the toilets beyond the agreed period. Once that fact was proved, the agreed daily charge became payable as a debt due under the contract, without need for documentary evidence of running expenses, taxes, or profit margins. [34] Accordingly, the defendant’s reliance on authorities requiring proof of damages through financial statements is misplaced. This is a case of enforcement of the contract itself, not of secondary claims for damages. The contract quantified the consequence of breach in advance, thereby obviating the need for extrinsic proof of financial loss. On the probabilities, therefore, the Plaintiff has discharged its burden of proof. **CONCLUSION** [35] Having considered the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I am of the view that the applicable law requires the Plaintiff to prove the existence of the contract, the terms thereof, the breach, and the consequences flowing from such breach. In the present case, the existence of the contract and its essential terms were common cause. What remained in dispute was the obligation relating to the return of the toilets. Plaintiff’s witnesses gave direct testimony that the Defendant undertook to return them, a version that withstood cross-examination. Defendant, on the other hand, led no evidence to support her version. In line with the principle in _**Moqeneheloa Monate**_ ,[21] a party who alleges must prove, and a party who elects to remain silent risks the Court accepting the opponent’s uncontroverted version. [36] On the balance of probabilities, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof. The Defendantwas under a duty to return the toilets and failed to do so. By agreement, this failure attracted liability for the daily hire rate until return. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed in its claim that it suffered loss resulting from defendant’s breach of contract. [37] Although the Plaintiff’s claim is framed as specific performance of an agreed, ascertainable daily hire (rather than unliquidated damages for loss of profit), the Court remains enjoined to prevent the unreasonable accumulation of loss where the innocent party could, by taking reasonable steps, have curtailed it. In _**Surties Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ministry of Health & Others**_** _,_** the Court reduced the quantum precisely because the Plaintiff could have adopted a practical course to limit its loss.[22] [38] By parity of reasoning, once the Defendant issued a clear demand inviting the Plaintiff to collect the toilets (letter dated 27th September: six days after the agreed return date), the Plaintiff was obliged to act reasonably to minimise further accrual of the daily hire. The Plaintiff neither responded to the demand nor advanced cogent evidence of impossibility; it simply let the amount mount up until 28th February 2023. On these facts, the causal chain for amounts accruing long after the demand is broken by the Plaintiff’s own inaction; any award beyond a short, reasonable window would offend the mitigation principle recognised in our courts. [39] The Court therefore allows recovery only for a brief, reasonable period covering the initial non-return up to (and including) a short grace period after the demand—fixed at seven (7) days on the facts and applying the conservative approach endorsed for imperfect proof (see _**Lesotho Bank v Khabo)**_.[23] This strikes a fair balance between enforcing the contractual consequence of non-return and declining to reward avoidable accumulation where the Plaintiff failed to take obvious, practical steps (such as arranging alternative transport) to collect promptly. [40] Accordingly, the court orders as follows: **ORDER** 1. 1. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff the sum of M6, 300.00 (Six Thousand Three Hundred Maloti), being the rental of two mobile toilets for seven days at M450 per day per toilet. 2. Interest thereon at the rate of 12.5% per annum from date of judgment to date of final payment. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs. 4. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. **_________________** **Dr. I. Shale J** **Judge of the High Court** For Plaintiff: Advocate K. Selimo For Defendant: Advocate T. Lesaoana * * * [1] _Makhomo Thetsane v Moeketsi Thetsane & Another __LC/APN/0011/2022[[2024] LSCH 163](/akn/ls/judgment/lsch/2024/163) (22 March 2024)._ [2] _Munster Estates (Pty) Ltd v Killarney Hills (Pty) Ltd_ 1979 (1) SA 621 (A) ; See also _C[…] F[…] G[…] v Fidelity Security Services_ Western Cape High Court Case No.1886/2020 (19 March 2025) unreported. [3] _Seutloali v Commissioner Lesotho Correctional Services_ _CIV/APN/0193/2022 [2022 LSHC 136 (3October 2022)_ [4] _Pillay v Krishna_ 1946 AD 946 at 952; See also _Mohajane v First National Bank – Lesotho_ CIV/T/926/2020 [[2022] LSHC 61](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2022/61) (18 August 2022) [5] _Botsane v Commissioner of Police & Another_ C of A (CIV) No. 23 of 2011 See also _Monate v Mefane_ (C of A (CIV) 19 of 2017) [[2018] LSCA 11](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2018/11) (7 December 2018) [6] _Moshoeshoe v Lesotho National General Insurance Company Ltd_ _CIV/T/0172/2016[[2024] LSHC 43](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/43) (8 May 2024)_ [7] _Pillay v Krishna_ _(supra note 4)_ [8] **__**_Molupe v Lesotho National General Insurance Company Ltd_ _CIV/T/570/2018[[2021] LSHC 27](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2021/27) (15 December 2021)_ [9] _Limema v Commissioner of Police_ _CIV/T407/2014 [2021]LSHC 8 (18 February 2021)._ [10] **_Qhalane v Makhetha_****(CCT/0178/2021)[[2023] LSHC 1](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/1) (16 February 2023)** _**[11]**__**M & C Construction International v Lesotho Housing and Land Corporation **_**C of A (CIV) 09 of 2015)[[2016] LSCA 4](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2016/4) (29 April 2016)** [12] Christie & Bradfield, 2022 _Law of Contract in South Africa_ , (8th ed.) [13] Neethling & Portgieter, 2022 _The law of delict_ (8thed.) [14] _Moqeneheloa Monate v Morapeli Mefane_ _(supra note 5)_ [15] _Botsane v Commissioner of Police_ _(supra note 5)_ [16] _Pillay v Krishna_ _(supra note 4)_ [17] _Pheleka Qhalane v Mokuena Makhetha_**(supra note 10)** [18] _M & C Construction International v Lesotho Housing and Land Corporation_ _C of A (CIV) 09/2015[[2016] LSCA 4](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2016/4)_ [19] _Lesotho Bank v Khabo_ C of A (CIV) 22 of 2003 [[2004] LSCA 6](/akn/ls/judgment/lsca/2004/6) (7 October 2004) [20] _Surties Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ministry of Health & Others (CCT/122/2013) [[2017] LSHC 15](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2017/15)_ [21] _Moqeneheloa Monate_ (supra note 5) [22] _Surties Investment (Pty) Ltd v Ministry of Health & Others_ (Supra note 20 at paras 23–24) [23] Supra (supra note 19) #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >