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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between CIV/APN/0159/2022 MATŠ𝐄𝐏𝐎 MATLAKENG 1ST APPLICANT KHUTLISO MATLAKENG 2ND APPLICANT And MIKE RAMAHETLANA MATLAKENG 1ST RESPONDENT TUMELO MATLAKENG 2ND RESPONDENT SELLO MATLAKENG 3RD RESPONDENTMALEHLOHONOLO MAFATA 4TH RESPONDENT MASEABATA WALL 5TH RESPONDENT MANTHABISENG SESINYI MANKOKOTO MATLAKENG MAMORATOE MATLAKENG 6TH RESPONDENT 7TH RESPONDENT 8TH RESPONDENT MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT 9TH RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL 10TH RESPONDENT Neutral Citation: ‘Matšepo Matlakeng & Another vs Mike Ramahetlana Matlakeng & 9 Others [2023] LSHC 128 CIV (21st August 2023) CORAM: HEARD: T. J. MOKOKO J 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. Cases ANNOTATIONS 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 Introduction JUDGMENT [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 (as amended by Act No.16 of 2012) 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 Lesotho1). 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 1 C of A (CIV) 36 of 2014 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 others2, 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 Thotanyane3, 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 Lepholisa4, 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 Ranthako5, 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 2 LC /APN/137/2014 3 CCA/0070/2015 4 LC/APN/12/2012 5 CIV/APN/291/2020 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 1ST – 8TH RESPONDENTS: ADV. E. KAO 7