Mats'epo Matlakeng V Ramahetlana Matlakeng &9 Others (CIV/APN/0159/2022) [2023] LSHC 128 (29 September 2023)

# Mats'epo Matlakeng V Ramahetlana Matlakeng &9 Others (CIV/APN/0159/2022) [2023] LSHC 128 (29 September 2023) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: Mats'epo Matlakeng V Ramahetlana Matlakeng &9 Others …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29) [ Download PDF (299.9 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (299.9 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2023/128/eng@2023-09-29/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Mats'epo Matlakeng V Ramahetlana Matlakeng &9 Others (CIV/APN/0159/2022) [2023] LSHC 128 (29 September 2023) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents * __Citations 1 / - Citation Mats'epo Matlakeng V Ramahetlana Matlakeng &9 Others (CIV/APN/0159/2022) [2023] LSHC 128 (29 September 2023) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2023] LSHC 128 Copy Hearing date 21 August 2023 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Case number CIV/APN/0159/2022 Judges [Mokoko J](/judgments/all/?judges=Mokoko%20J) Judgment date 29 September 2023 Language English Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO** **Held at Maseru** **CIV/APN/0159/2022** In the matter between **MAT****ŠEPO****MATLAKENG 1 ST APPLICANT** **KHUTLISO MATLAKENG** **2 ND APPLICANT** And **MIKE RAMAHETLANA MATLAKENG** **** **1 ST RESPONDENT** **TUMELO MATLAKENG 2 ND RESPONDENT** **SELLO MATLAKENG 3 RD RESPONDENTMALEHLOHONOLO MAFATA** **4 TH RESPONDENT MASEABATA WALL** **5 TH RESPONDENT** **MANTHABISENG SESINYI** **6 TH RESPONDENT** **MANKOKOTO MATLAKENG** **7 TH RESPONDENT** **MAMORATOE MATLAKENG** **8 TH RESPONDENT** **MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT** **9 TH RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL** **10 TH RESPONDENT** _Neutral Citation_ : ‘Matšepo Matlakeng & Another vs Mike Ramahetlana Matlakeng & 9 Others [2023] LSHC 128 CIV (21st August 2023) **CORAM:** T.J. MOKOKO J **HEARD:** 21ST AUGUST 2023 **DELIVERED:** 29TH SEPTEMBER 2023 **__SUMMARY__** _Summary- Declaratory Order sought- that wife has same ownership rights over property of her deceased husband- Challenge that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Court- held that matter falls within the jurisdiction of this court- subject matter being heirship/inheritance_. **ANNOTATIONS** **_Cases_** 1. _Lephema v Total Lesotho C of A (CIV) 36 of 2014_ 2. _Mafube Investment Holdings (PTY) Ltd. V Mashamole Letaoa_ _LC /APN/137/2014_ 3. _Thabiso Makepe v Lebohang Thotanyane_ _CCA/0070/2015_ 4. _Lepholisa v Lepholisa LC/APN/12/2012_ 5. _Ranthako v Ranthako CIV/APN/291/2020_ **_Statutes_** 1. _Land Act 2010_ **JUDGMENT** **Introduction** [1] First applicant instituted motion proceedings before this court seeking the following prayers. 1\. An order declaring the 1st applicant has the same ownership rights to all the property which belonged to the 1st applicant deceased husband. 2\. An order directing the 1st respondent to hand over to the 1st applicant certain properties amongst which were original leases for certain landed properties, a Nissan vehicle, sheep, and other documents. 3\. An order declaring a letter dated the 21st November 2022, authored by the 2nd to the 8th respondents appointing the 1st respondent as a person responsible for the deceased’s property to be wrongful, unlawful, and invalid and/or void. 4\. An order directing the 1st respondent to desist and stop from disposing of the deceased’s property pending finalisation of this application. 5\. An order directing the 1st respondent to desist from interfering in any manner whatsoever, with the 1st applicant’s administration of her property/estate with deceased Matlakeng A. Matlakeng. [2] The 1st respondent opposed this matter and has raised point of law that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this matter as the dispute involves rights to land, as such the Land Court is the competent court that has jurisdiction over this matter. [3] On the other hand, the 1st applicant contends that this matter is not a land dispute such that it may be said that the Land Court has jurisdiction over this matter. [4] Issue for determination is whether this matter is a land dispute. If it is a land dispute, then this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. **The Law** [5] The High Court has unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters before it, except where the jurisdiction is ousted by any other law. The question is therefore whether the _Land Act No. 8 of 2010_ disqualifies this court from adjudicating in this matter. It is trite Law that the Land Court and the District Land Court are given an exclusive jurisdiction in terms of _section 73 of the Land[Act No. 8 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/8) (as amended by [Act No.16 of 2012](/akn/ls/act/2012/16))_ to hear and determine all disputes, actions, and proceedings “concerning land”. The phrase concerning land was interpreted to mean “claims/disputes from title to land, derogations from title and rights which override title (**_Lephema v Total Lesotho_**** _**[1]**_****_)_**. The District Land Court and the Land Court are given an unlimited jurisdiction in respect of land matters. It is true that High Court has unlimited jurisdiction, however, that jurisdiction has been curtailed or conditioned by the legislatively- empowered land specialist courts. [6] It is a matter of common cause that the 1st applicant is seeking a declaratory that the 1st applicant has the same ownership rights to all the property which belonged to the 1st applicant’s deceased husband. The 1st applicant further sought a declaratory that the letter authored by the 2nd to 8th respondents appointing the 1st respondent as the person responsible to the deceased’s property was wrongful, unlawful and invalid. [7] In the case of **_Lephema v Total Lesotho (PTY)_**_(supra)_ , the Court of Appeal of Lesotho said that: “ _In regard to the jurisdiction issue, the inquiry as to whether the expression “relating to land” or concerning land” must therefore focus on the provisions of the Act. It is clear in my mind that the Act is concerned (Apart from the presently irrelevant matter of allocations unaccompanied by the grant of title) with title to land, derogations from title and rights which override title… Those expressions are of wide and general import, but they must be interpreted in their context so that disputes to which they refer are disputes involving claims to title, claims relying on derogations from title or claims to rights overriding title_ ”. [8] In the case of **_Mafube Investment Holdings (PTY) Ltd. V Mashamole Letaoa_** and others[2], the land court held that it had no jurisdiction as **Sakoane J** as he then was confirmed that where specific performance is sought, the proper forum has to be the commercial court. In the case of **_Thabiso Makepe v Lebohang Thotanyane_**[3], the commercial court held that since the applicant sought specific performance, it was within the jurisdiction of the commercial court to grant the remedy of specific performance. [9] Adv. Lesaoana, counsel for the applicants referred the court to the case of **_Lepholisa v Lepholisa_**[4], in which applicant claimed to be the right person to be appointed an heir to her father’s estate in the Land Court. When dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of the Land Court in the matter, **Justice Mahase** had this to say: “ _This Court (Land Court) does not clearly have jurisdiction to deal with disputes relating to claims based on inheritance and or succession, nor can it deal with matters regarding a declarator based on heirship. Such issues can be adjudicated upon by the High Court exercising its normal civil jurisdiction_ ”. [10] Adv. Lesaoana further referred this court to the case of **_Ranthako v Ranthako_**[5], where the relief sought was that the applicant be declared the rightful heir to the estate of the deceased. **Justice Khabo** when dealing with the issue of jurisdiction stated that there is a distinction between a pure land dispute and one involving heirship over the estate that also includes land. The court in **_Ranthako_** matter referred to the judgment in **_Lepholisa v Lepholisa_** (_supra_), and the point in _limine_ of lack of jurisdiction was dismissed. **Disposition** [11] There is no doubt in my mind that the relief sought by the 1st applicant is that she be declared to have the same rights to all the property of her deceased husband and that purported letter appointment of the first respondent to the property of the deceased be declared wrongful, unlawful and invalid. I hold a strong view that this matter is not a land dispute, rather a matter involving declaratory in respect of inheritance or succession to the deceased’s estate. Based on the cases referred to above, I hold that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter. **Order** 1. The point in _limine_ on the lack of jurisdiction is dismissed with costs. 2. The matter should then proceed on the remaining aspects of this case. **________________________** **T.J. MOKOKO** **JUDGE** **FOR APPLICANTS** : ADV. T.A. LESAOANA **FOR 1 ST – 8TH RESPONDENTS**: ADV. E. KAO * * * [1] C of A (CIV) 36 of 2014 [2] LC /APN/137/2014 [3] CCA/0070/2015 [4] LC/APN/12/2012 [5] CIV/APN/291/2020 #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >