IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO JUDGMENT
|
|
- Jocelyn Stafford
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 HELD AT MASERU IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between:- MOSIUOA JAPHTA RAMABUSETSA MOTS ELISI RAMABUSETSA MAPULENG RAMABUSETSA THAPELO RAMABUSETSA LC/APN/92/ ST APPLICANT 2 ND APPLICANT 3 RD APPLICANT 4 TH APPLICANT AND MOFOKA MASAKALE METOLONG AUTHORITY 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Coram : Hon. Mahase J. Date of hearing : Various dates Date of Judgment : 26 th February, 2015 Summary Land Court application Appropriation of land by the second respondent competing claims over that land by applicants and first respondent who is entitled to compensation to be paid by second respondent Heirship rights over said land to be determined family having appointed an heir. ANNOTATIONS CITED CASES: - Lethaha v. Lethaha H.C.C. 14/10/43 - Peleha v. Peleha J.C. 251/47 - Motsamai v. Motsamai and Others CIV/APN/166/2008 (unreported) - Moteane v. Moteane and Others; CIV/AN/119/93 - Mokhejane v. Seisa J.C. 155/50 STATUTES: - Land Act No. 8 of
2 - Laws of Lerotholi BOOKS - [1] The applicants in this application have approached this court in terms of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Land Court Rules No. 1 of They seek relief which appears at paragraph 5 of the originating application. [2] A pre-trial was held in terms of the provisions of Rule 63 after which the matter was argued after the provisions of Rule 64 of the said Rules were complied with. Issues for determination by this Court can be summarized as being the following:- - Whether in any case under customary law, the lawful heir can be deprived of the greater part of the estate. - Whether a South African citizen can inherit and be a holder of land rights under the laws of Lesotho. [3] The above are issues pertaining to questions of law, so that for this Court to make a determination on same, it is imperative to investigate as to which law is applicable. [4] Before doing so, one has to first make an outline of the facts which precipitated into the launching of this application. In doing so, this 2
3 court observe that it has since become clear from the pretrial conference and from the facts as outlined by parties herein in their respective papers i.e. from the originating application and the answer; that most of the said facts are of a common cause. [5] Briefly, all the applicants are the members/or simblings of the Ramabusetsa family. They are Basotho by nationality although they are currently residing in the Republic of South Africa at Vereeniging. Refer to paragraph 1 of the originating application. They were all born at Liqalaneng Ha Masakale in the district of Maseru. [6] The 1 st respondent is also a Mosotho male adult of Liqalaneng Ha Masakale in Maseru. He is the applicants cousin as clearly described at paragraph 2 of the originating application. [7] The 2 nd respondent is a body corporate duly registered and carrying on business in Lesotho and trades by the name of Metolong Authority, and it is cited herein as an authority responsible for the Metolong Project. This body, among other things, is responsible for paying compensation to various people in the Metolong area whose properties are or may be affected by the works carried on by the 2 nd respondent. [8] The properties is the applicants parents and or great parents in the form of arable land and some tree plantations have since been identified as some of the properties which are indeed affected by the works of the 2 nd respondent carried on in that area. The applicants 3
4 whose parents have since or grand parents died are the beneficiaries of such proceeds as has been outlined in their originating application. They have, as the Ramabusetsa family, appointed the first applicant as an heir to their late parents said estate. [9] The above are all matters of common cause; so also is the fact that after the death of applicants father, Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa SR, left his father home and went to reside at his younger brother s home; to (that is the applicants father). He then requested the now first respondent being his sister s son (cousin) to stay at his parental home to look after it and to also look after the applicants parental properties, now subject-matter in this application. [10] Subsequent to the above, Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa passed on, on the 28 th January He therefore left all of the applicants as the only surviving members of the Ramabusetsa family. [11] The first respondent denies the above and alleges that in fact the said Mosiuoa Mabusetsa (not Ramabusetsa) made the first respondent a donation intervoves of his residential house as well as the ploughing fields. To this extend, the first respondent has attached to his answer the said letter of donation; marked annexure1. [12] I pause to note that nowhere does the first respondent make mention of the forest or tree plantation which is allegedly situated at the Phuthiatsana river. He has also not particularized the said ploughing 4
5 fields neither has he disclosed their location nor their actual numbers. I will deal with this issue in due course. [13] Also notably clear, is that the first respondent refers to one Mosiuoa Mabusetsa and not to Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa; so that eventually one is at a loss as to whether Mosiuoa Mabusetsa is the same person as Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa Sr. consistently so referred to by the applicants in their originating application. [14] Further on this issue, nowhere has the surname of the Mofoka Referred to in the alleged annexure 1 been given or disclosed. How then does this Court know for certain that this Mofoka is the actual first respondent? Also and equally importantly, the figure print impression on this annexure 1, (although this annexure has not been specifically marked), has not been witnessed by anybdy. How then will this Court know for a fact that this is the finger print of the said Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa or that of Mosiuooa Mabusetsa? [15] In a nutshell, and regard being had to the issues canvassed above, the authenticity of this annexure 1 is highly suspect particularly because there is no compliance with the provisions of Proclamation No. 73 of [16] The first respondent has indeed also not denied that he is not a biological son or child of the Ramabusetsa family. Conversely, he has conceded that the rest of the applicants are indeed members of the Ramabusetsa family. Unlike the first applicant; the first respondent 5
6 has not attached to his answer any documentary proof of his nomination as an heir to the estate of the late Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa. [17] The documents which confirm the nomination of first applicant as an heir to his late father s estate and which have been signed by the other Ramabusetsa siblings and only surviving members of Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa herein attached together with the fair English translation, have not been gainsaid by the first respondent. Neither has he challenged the contents of letter written by one Khethisa Masakale, the chief of Liqalaneng. [18] What the first respondent alleges in his answer at sub-paragraph etc. does not assist to advance his case. What he is alleging about applicants being disentitled from benefitting as heirs to their biological parents estate is irrelevant particularly because he has not attached proof of such identity documents. Further on, even assuming without conceding that what he says is correct, he is not supported by any legal principle, nor is it his evidence that the first applicant as well as the rest of the applicants numbers two up to four have renounced their Lesotho citizenship. There is no documentary proof that they have actually renounced their Lesotho citizenship, in which case they would indeed no longer be considered Lesotho citizens capable of owning rights over any Land in Lesotho. [19] In particular, first applicant s averments at sub-paragraph are startling, untenable and not supported by any known legal principle, at least in this jurisdiction, moreso when the fact that the applicants are 6
7 the only surviving biological children of Mosiuoa Ramabusets Sr. has not been challenged in anyway. [20] As has been indicated above, the first respondent s alleged involvement in the burial of the late Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa is not and cannot be the basis upon which he can claim heirship over Mosiuoa s estate while the biological siblings of Mosiuoa are still alive. [21] I note also with concern that his having actively participated in the burial of Mosiuoa was so as he would use this as a leverage to disentitle the applicants of their father s estate. Also, the alleged donation intervivos referred to at sub-paragraph has not been witnessed by any member of the Ramabusetsa nor that of Mabusetsa family. [22] In effect, in both the Sesotho and the English versions of documentary evidence of this donation intervivors, the donee is written only as Mofoka with no surname. How then can one say for certain that the donee thereat is the first respondent? [23] This is in addition to the fact already alluded to above to the effect that the finger print affixed on that document, allegedly by the donor has not been confirmed, attested to nor witness by anybody. Equally, it is highly suspect that it is that of the deceased who is said to have allegedly donated the said properties to first respondent. 7
8 [24] Further on, and by some strange coincidence, this document has been certified by or at the office of the Maputsoe police some seven months after the death of the donor who died on the 28 th January This was so certified at another district well outside and away from the district of Maseru, which is the district where the parties herein and the deceased do not reside. There is also no original copy of this document exhibited in Court for the court to be satisfied that indeed such an original is in fact in existence. [25] The above applies in respect of the date-stamps on annexure 2, which is a copy of the report normally made at the chief s place immediately after the deceased s death. [26] In a nutshell, and regard being had to the contents of the applicants averments in the originating application; to wit paragraphs 4, the authenticity of the donation with regard to the donation intervivos remains highly suspect and questionable. In addition and in particular, the first respondent has not denied in anyway the contents of the applicants sub-paragraph 4.4 as to how he came to possess the deceased s said properties. [27] If indeed the first respondent had already received that property intervivos long before the death of the deceased, why then did he and not the deceased inform the applicants as well as the second respondent that it was him and not the deceased who should have been consulted and considered to receive the compensation for those pieces 8
9 of land. Why wait to lay such a claim only after the death of the deceased? [28] Also the first respondent did not inform the applicants about this donation to him by the deceased but he just proceeded ahead to submit his name claiming to be the heir to the deceased estate. This he did only after the death of the deceased. Why? In fact, it is a fallacy that the first respondent is an heir of the deceased herein. There is nothing on record indicating that he was ever appointed an heir by the Ramabusetsa family members at any time over the estate of the deceased, Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa SR. [29] Heirship rights and rights which one acquired through a donation are treated differently, so also are the procedures through which such rights are acquired. In the instant matter, there is proof that subsequent to the death of the said Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa the only surviving members of that family appointed the first applicant as an heir to his estate which comprises the property, subject-matter in this application. [30] There is neither any such documentary proof annexed to the answer of the first respondent; neither has first respondent approached an appropriate court of law to challenge the appointment of the first applicant as an heir to the said estate of the deceased, Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa SR. 9
10 [31] The first respondent relies on the document, (annexure 1) which he argues to constitute a donation intervivos between deceased and himself. This Court has already dealt with the shortcomings of this document above. [32] Donation means a contract whereby one person called the donor who is under no obligation whatsoever, but acting out of pure liberality promises to give to another, called the donee, something without wishing to get anything in return or stipulating for anything in his own favour. [33] Donations may be divided into two principal classes, viz; (a) donations mortis causa (donations made in contemplation of death); and (b) donations intervivos (donations made otherwise than mortis causa) [34] The applicants story is that the deceased, Mosiua Ramabusetsa,had before his death registered with the second authority as the person entitled to receive compensation for the expropriation by the second respondent of his said properties but that he died before he could receive same. This has not been challenged and or denied by the first respondent. [35] The first respondent has in fact not disclosed to Court the circumstances under which the deceased made to him a donation intervivos of his property. He only says he submitted his name as heir to the estate of Mosiuoa Mabusetsa (and not Ramabusetsa) but ends 10
11 here. Why would the deceased submit his name as a beneficiary if he had already donated that property to 1 st respondent? The averments of the applicants as contained in sub-paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 remain admitted and unchallenged. [36] The first respondent has also sort to rely, in support of his case on the judgment of the Sefikeng Local Court in which the Chief of Ha Masakale had sued him, seeking to have him (1 st respondent) evicted from the property of the deceased Mosiuoa Mabusetsa Sr. (annexure 5). Apart from the fact that subject-matter therein was a vegetable garden and a poplar forest; obviously not comprising of the deceased s other arable and residential plots, neither the deceased nor any of the immediate blood relatives of the deceased and applicants herein were parties to that case. [37] If indeed the said donation between the deceased and the first respondent had been made, accepted and registered with the chief of the area in question in 1998 one wonders why:- - The first respondent did not challenge the deceased when the deceased; prior to his death in January 2008, submitted his name to the second respondent as a beneficiary of the compensation referred to above. Why did he not do so, since according to him he had already accepted that donation from the deceased? The only reasonable answer to this question is that, it is because no such donation to him had ever been made by the deceased. He had no right to such property of the deceased. As a principle of the law, since the first respondent 11
12 would have already accepted that donation way back in 1998 (according to the chief s date stamp) and since there is no allegation that such a donation had been revoked by the donor prior to his death, the first respondent has a legitimate right to have challenged the deceased when he suddenly submitted his name as a beneficiary as explained in applicants sub-paragraph 7. - Why has the first respondent not annexed any documentary proof indicating his having been appointed an heir by the Ramabusetsa family and or by any members of the extended family referred to in the contents of sub-paragraph of his answer? [38] The first respondent has also not disclosed in his answer who these extended family members are nor what he means by that. Does that include or exclude the applicants? [39] As a principle of the law, a donation is never presumed. The intention to make a donation must be clear and manifest from the acts and language of the donor, and cannot be inferred from an indefinite expression of a desire to make a gift. [40] The fact that the deceased, who is alleged to have made a donation of his property, subject-matter herein to the first respondent is negatived by his subsequent submission of his own names to the second respondent as the person entitled to receive compensation for the 12
13 expropriation of his said pieces of land just prior to his death on the 28 th January [41] It is trite that there is a strong presumption in law against gifts, as nobody is presumed to throw away or squander his property. [42] Regard being had to the circumstances of this case, in particular to the fact that the first respondent, unlike the applicants, is not related by blood with the deceased, and also to the fact that there is an unchallenged evidence that the applicants are the only surviving direct relatives and members of the deceased s family, it remains doubtful and untenable that the deceased could have donated his said pieces of land as well as his residential home to the first respondent to the total exclusion of his children and or the immediate children of his own brother. [43] Also the mere fact that the first respondent makes a bare allegation that the applicants are now citizens of South Africa is not and cannot be enough for this Court to conclude that that indeed is the obtaining situation. [44] The first respondent has not placed before court any proof of any kind confirming that indeed the applicants are holders of the South African identity documents and most importantly, there is no proof indicating that they have formally renounced their Lesotho citizenship. 13
14 [45] The basis upon which the first respondent avers that the applicants are South African citizens and that they all live in South Africa permanently has no foundation nor lawful foundational basis; because of lack of evidence proofing that fact as against all of the applicants. His averments to this effect cannot be relied upon in court without such documentation having been annexed to his answer as proof of this fact, and without proof of their having formally renounced their citizenship of Lesotho. [46] The applicants and other family members of the Ramabusetsa have since appointed the first applicant; Mosiuoa Japhta Ramabusetsa of Ha Masakale and not of Vereeniging in the Repubic of South Africa, an heir to the estate of the deceased Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa Sr. and nobody else. The first applicant has inherited this property ex lege. [47] This appointment has to date not been challenged in anyway by the first respondent. He cannot have it challenged on any basis because it is trite that at least in this jurisdiction matters pertaining to such appointments are the domain of the particular family concerned. [48] The first respondent is a member of the Masakale family; as such he has no say in the family affairs and dealings of property of the Ramabusetsa family. He cannot therefore be permitted or allowed to interfere with the decision made by the Ramabusetsa family members, except by due process of the law should he be aggrieved by their said appointment of the first applicant as an heir. 14
15 [49] He has to date not challenged the applicants appointment of the first applicant as an heir to the estate of the late Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa Sr. (the deceased). Until such time that such an appointment is challenged successfully in a court of law, it will stand and nobody; not even the chiefs of both Ha Masakale and Boithatelo and or any other chiefly authority in their respective hierarchy can undo it unilaterally and without recourse to the law. [50] The first respondent has not pleaded issuably to the applicants averment to the effect that there is in existence a letter through which they have proofed that the first applicant has been appointed an heir to the estate of the deceased Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa, and that such an appointment has been done by the surviving members of the said family. He only states that he has noted contents of the applicants at subparagraph 4.13 of the originating application. He neither admits denies and or refutes same. He contents himself with only making reference to the alleged letter of donation referred to above. The issue with regard to this letter has already been dealt with above. [51] The first respondent s reliance on the judgment of the Sefikeng Local Court, in CC40/13 of the 14 th June 2013 cannot advance his case any further because among others, in terms of the provisions of the relevant Land Act 2010 and the appropriate Land Court Rules Nos. 2 and 1 of 2012, the local and central courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate over matters such as in the present application. Refer to the interpretation sections of both sets of Land Court and District Land Court Rules. 15
16 [52] In the premises, it is the considered view of this Court that the chief of Boithatelo has no right or power to interfere in any way with the appointment by the Ramabusetsa family of the first applicant as an heir to the estate of the late Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa Sr. (the deceased). [53] He is accordingly ordered to cancel and expunge from his records the letter allegedly appointing the first respondent an heir to the said estate; subject-matter herein. [54] He is further ordered to accept, endorse and sign the letter of appointment of first applicant as an heir to the whole estate of the said Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa Sr. (deceased) who is the younger brother of the applicant s father. He is further ordered to assist the said first applicant to process by lawful means the payment to him (first applicant) by the second respondent of the compensation money or benefits which would otherwise be due to the late Mosiuoa Ramabusetsa SR. [55] The second respondent is ordered to stop interfering with the affairs of and between the Ramabusetsa family and the second respondent. The alleged letter of donation intervivos is also declared unlawful and without no force of law. 16
17 [56] The Court declines to order prayer 5.2 because it has no jurisdiction to do so in the existence of a clear appointment of the first applicant as heir to the estate in question. This Court could interfere in this regard only if the appointment of the Ramabusetsa family of an heir referred to above had been challenged before a court of law. [57] The first respondent, who has unnecessarily compelled the applicants to incur costs of this application is ordered to pay costs to the applicants. [58] This order of court, must be served upon the second respondent for it to accordingly process and pay compensation for the expropriation by it of the pieces of and other related properties subject-matter to the first applicant forth with. This matter is long overdue. M. Mahase For Applicants: For Respondent: Adv. M.V. Khesuoe 17
18 For first Respondent: Adv. K.M. Thabane For second Respondent: No appearance 18
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru LC/APN/152/2014 In the matter between: TSELISO MOTEBELE APPLICANT And MAMPHO MAZULU MATEKASE RESPONDENT CORAM: S.P. SAKOANE AJ DATE OF HEARING: 5 MARCH, 2015
More informationVILMA VASQUEZ, SHENI VASQUEZ, BOBBY VASQUEZ and STANLY VASQUEZ (Intended Administrators and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Moises Vasquez, deceased)
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2007 CLAIM No. 124 OF 2007 BETWEEN VILMA VASQUEZ, SHENI VASQUEZ, BOBBY VASQUEZ and STANLY VASQUEZ (Intended Administrators and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Moises
More informationIN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between: TSELISO MOKEMANE LC/APN/30B/2013 1 ST APPLICANT And TLHAKO MOKHORO HER WORSHIP MRS. MOTEBELE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2011 VERSUS AVM MAHINDER SINGH RAO...RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6918-6919 OF 2011 NARINDER SINGH RAO...APPELLANT VERSUS AVM MAHINDER SINGH RAO...RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS J U
More information6:06 PREVIOUS CHAPTER
TITLE 6 Chapter 6:06 TITLE 6 PREVIOUS CHAPTER WILLS ACT Acts 13/1987, 2/1990, 21/1998, 22/2001. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Application of Act. 4. Capacity to
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. R.S.A.No.2061/2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN: DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL R.S.A.No.2061/2012 1. M.M.Thammayya S/o late M.M.Muthanna Aged about
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Pronounced on: versus -...Respondent
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: 19.01.2011 + Test.Cas. 75/2008 Smt. Geeta Devi Goel.. Petitioner - versus - State...Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the
More informationI SUCCESSIONS UNDER FRENCH DOMESTIC LAW
1 Preamble With around 12.3 million Europeans living in a European Union country other than their own, approximately 450 000 international successions are registered each year in France. There are two
More informationTHE PROBATE RULES. (Section 9) PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (rules 1-3)
THE PROBATE RULES (Section 9) G.Ns. Nos. 10 of 1963 107 of 1963 369 of 1963 PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (rules 1-3) 1. Citation These Rules may be cited as the Probate Rules. 2. Interpretation In these
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2008
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2008 BETWEEN: GEORGE WESTBY ERNEST STAINE (Administrator of the Estate of Abner Westby) ELIZABETH MICHAEL ELMA WESTBY (Former Administrators
More informationIN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru LC/APN/170/2014 In the matter between: MAMOHAU NKUNDLANE MWANGI NELIA JOYCE RADFORD 1 ST APPLICANT 2 ND APPLICANT And LEROTHOLI JOSIAS MASUPHA THE LAND ADMINISTRATION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO.: 983 of 1996 BETWEEN JOAN BERNADETTE MAINGOT Executrix of the estate of Rose Mary Maingot, deceased Claimant and MONICA DEVAUX Defendant Appearances For
More informationESTATE PLANNING IN COSTA RICA
ESTATE PLANNING IN COSTA RICA GENERAL DEFINITION OF WILL It is the legal instrument, executed in accordance to formalities established by the Law, that allows a person, testator, to define the disposition
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 149/2000 1. Musstt. Sufia Khatun, W/O Late Danish Ali. 2. Md. Mintu Sheikh alias
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 ACTION NO. 647 OF 2004 BETWEEN DAISY WATSON CLAIMANT AND ALEXANDER WATSON DEFENDANT CORAM: Hon Justice Sir John Muria Hearing: 22 May 2007 Judgement: 10 October
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND
More informationMINYUKU TSAKANI YVETTE MINYUKU TINYIKO ROSE MINYUKU MUHLURI MINYUKU HLEKANI ROSE MASTER OF LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU) In the matter between: Case No. 356/2012 MINYUKU TSAKANI YVETTE MINYUKU TINYIKO ROSE MINYUKU MUHLURI 1 st Applicant 2 nd Applicant 3
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
CIV/APN/139/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between:- REVEREND RAMAKHUTSOANE LIETA APPLICANT vs BISHOP JOSEPH TSUBELLA REVEREND JOSEPH LEODI 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Delivered
More informationTrading Enterprises Order, Oder No. 11 of 1993
Trading Enterprises Order, 1993 Oder No. 11 of 1993 Published by the Authority of the Chairman of the Military Council and Council of Ministers Price: 90 Lisente TRADING ENTERPRISES ORDER 1993 TABLE IF
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus
More informationMINISTERIAL REGULATION (B.E (1992)) ISSUED UNDER TRADEMARK ACT, B.E (1991) 1
Unofficial Translation * MINISTERIAL REGULATION (B.E. 2535 (1992)) ISSUED UNDER TRADEMARK ACT, B.E. 2534 (1991) 1 By virtue of section 5, section 11, section 29, section 30, section 35, section 40, section
More informationDECISION No.312 of November 19 th 2002
DECISION No.312 of November 19 th 2002 on the objection of unconstitutionality of provisions under Article 1 paragraph (2) of Law No.9/1998 regarding the award of compensations to Romanian citizens for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8241 OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT VERSUS DIDAR SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENTS N.V. RAMANA, J. JUDGMENT
More informationDeeds Registries Act 47 of 1937 section 10
MADE IN TERMS OF section 10 Government Notice 180 of 1996 (GG 1343) came into force on date of publication: 1 July 1996 The Government Notice which issues these regulations repeals the regulations published
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 80/2006
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Rahmat Ali, S/o Md. Hafizatddin 2. Smti. Nazma Rahman, W/o Md. Rahmat Ali, Both are residents
More informationGuardianship Services Act
NB: Unofficial translation Guardianship Services Act (442/1999) Chapter 1 General provisions Section 1 (1) The objective of guardianship services is to look after the rights and interests of persons who
More informationTransmission & New Bank Mandate Forms
TRANSMISSION DOCUMENTS MATRIX - READY RECKONER Sr. No Documents Required for Transmission Transmission to Surviving Joint Holders Demise of Solo/All unit holders & Nominee/s registered Demise of Solo/All
More informationLouisiana Code Title 9 Civil code ancillaries. RS 9:1721 Louisiana trust code CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA TRUST CODE PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Louisiana Code Title 9 Civil code ancillaries RS 9:1721 Louisiana trust code CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA TRUST CODE PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1721. Title This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF BLUESTEM GROUP INC. ARTICLE I OFFICES ARTICLE II STOCKHOLDERS
As amended effective February 16, 2017 AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF BLUESTEM GROUP INC. ARTICLE I OFFICES The registered agent, if any, and registered office of the Corporation in the State of Nevada
More informationWilliam Luther Brookes and another v James Hendrickson and another CIVIL SUIT NO: 51 OF 1997
Page 1 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Reports/ 2000 / St. Kitts and Nevis / William Luther Brookes and another v James Hendrickson and another - [2000] ECSCJ No. 215 [2000] ECSCJ No. 215 William Luther
More informationCorrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6015 OF 2009 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellant(s) versus Ashwani Kumar and others Respondent(s)
More informationLANCASTER COUNTY RULES OF ORPHANS COURT
LANCASTER COUNTY RULES OF ORPHANS COURT RULE 1. Judges - Local Rules RULE 1.2. Title and Citation of Rules These rules shall be known as the Lancaster County Rules of Orphans Court and may be cited as
More informationSupporting Documents required in case of No Nomination
Supporting Documents required in case of No Nomination 1. Copy of succession certificate/letter of administration/probate of will duly attested by Notary/Gazette officer. OR Indemnity Bond and Affidavit
More informationPart Three. Section V. Law of Succession. Chapter 61. General Provisions Governing Succession
Part Three Adopted by the State Duma on November 1 2001 Approved by the Federation Council on November 14 2001 Section V. Law of Succession Chapter 61. General Provisions Governing Succession Article 1110.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.NO.937/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.MUNIYAMMA, W/O LATE DORASWAMY REDDY, AGED
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] Apart from an order of costs against the respondents on the attorney client
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO.: 871/2011 Date heard: 23 June 2011 Date issued: In the matter between: DANILE MILI Applicant and MATRON, FORT BEAUFORT HOSPITAL DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 402 OF 1996 BETWEEN: CLIFTON ST HILL Plaintiff and Appearances: Olin Dennie for the Plaintiff Nicole Sylvester for the Defendant
More informationESTATES & TRUSTS winter 2007 ANSWER OUTLINE
ESTATES & TRUSTS winter 2007 ANSWER OUTLINE I. (30 min.) A. - lost will doctrine - if will cannot be found, testator is presumed to have revoked it by destruction - if will was destroyed inadvertently,
More informationGrounds of Inadmissibility
Grounds of Inadmissibility Affidavit of Support 212(h) Criminal Waivers Unlawful Presence New York/Miami/Chicago/L.A./San Francisco 2003 Affidavit of Support Due to the transition, the final rule implementing
More informationis commonly called "publication" of the will, and is typically satisfied by the words "last will and testament" on the face of the document.
EXECUTORSHIP On the death of a man/woman, his/her property will pass on to someone else. The right to own the property left behind by the deceased and exercise control over it will need to be determined.
More informationGifting of Shares Packet
Gifting of Shares Packet Goldbelt, Incorporated, is an Alaska Native Corporation created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The gifting of Goldbelt shares may only be transferred to a child,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....
More informationHousing Development Schemes for Retired Person s Act
Housing Development Schemes for Retired Person s Act - Act 65 of 1988 - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES FOR RETIRED PERSONS ACT 65 OF 1988 [ASSENTED TO 17 JUNE 1988] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JULY 1989] (Afrikaans
More informationREUBEN ITUMELENG TODI MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: 751/2005 In the matter between:- REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Defendant OF NORTH WEST RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH
More information(RSA) (RSA GG 550) (OG
Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act 81 of 1963 (RSA) (RSA GG 550) initially brought into force in South West Africa by Ord. 27 of 1965 (OG 2636) with effect from the date of publication of that
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, 2016 SH. SURENDER KUMAR... Plaintiff Through Mr. Manoranjan and Mr.Kailash Sharma, Advocates versus SH. DHANI RAM AND OTHERS
More informationSubmitted October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More information-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF 2010
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2015 OF 2010 1. State of Maharashtra ) through the Principal Secretary, Medical Education ) and Drugs Department,
More informationNucci v Nucci 2012 NY Slip Op 31931(U) July 11, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 44836/2010 Judge: Joseph Farneti Republished from
Nucci v Nucci 2012 NY Slip Op 31931(U) July 11, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 44836/2010 Judge: Joseph Farneti Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationNew Bank Mandate Details with Attestation from Bank Branch Manager
New Bank Mandate Details with Attestation from Bank Branch Manager Annexure I or with This is to certify that Mr. /
More informationARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Act No. 14 of 2011 I assent NGWAZI PROF. BINGU WA MUTHARIKA PRESIDENT SECTION ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 18 th August, 2011 PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short Title 2. Application 3. Interpretation 4. Variation
More informationAnnexure - I : New Bank Mandate Details with Attestation from Bank Branch Manager TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
M U T U A L F U N D Annexure - I : New Bank Mandate Details with Attestation from Bank Branch Manager or
More informationDECEASED ESTATES (WILLS, INHERITANCE AND PROTECTION)
DECEASED ESTATES (WILLS, INHERITANCE AND PROTECTION) CHAPTER 10:02 Containing Pages 1 35 L.R.O. 1/2015 SECTION Deceased Estates (Wills, Inheritance and Protection) Cap. 10:02 1 CHAPTER 10:02 DECEASED
More informationWills and Inheritance 1
Wills and Inheritance 1 MALA WI GOVERNMENT Act No. 25 of 1967 I assent ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION I. Short title and application PARTI-PRELIMINARY 2. Interpretation and prescribed trusts 3. Variation
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA
More informationTRUSTS IN GENERAL AND TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO WHICH TRUSTS ARE A PARTY
TRUSTS IN GENERAL AND TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO WHICH TRUSTS ARE A PARTY WHAT IS A TRUST? There are two types of trusts, inter vivos or living trusts and testamentary trusts also
More informationIN ADDITION TO THE SALE NOTICE DATED , FOLLOWING ARE THE OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SALE OF THE ASSETS OF
1 IN ADDITION TO THE SALE NOTICE DATED 25.05.2018, FOLLOWING ARE THE OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SALE OF THE ASSETS OF M/s. WIN WIN PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED. 1. The tenderers shall read and understand
More informationI, son / wife of Sh., aged years, resident of House No., Sector, Chandigarh, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
FORM - VII (AFFIDAVIT TO BE FURNISHED BY TRANSFERER FOR ADDITION OF NAME OF SPOUSE ON A NON-JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER OF RS. 3/- DULY ATTESTED BY MAGISTRATE IST CLASS) ------- I, son / wife of Sh., aged years,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 520 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 520 of 2005 Fr. Mariya Packian S.J. Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector,
More informationRULES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY ORPHANS COURT DIVISION CHAPTER 1. LOCAL RULES OF ORPHANS COURT DIVISION
RULES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY ORPHANS COURT DIVISION CHAPTER 1. LOCAL RULES OF ORPHANS COURT DIVISION 1.1 Short Title and Citation. These rules adopted by the Court of Common Pleas
More informationThrough: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. C.M(M) No. 211/2013. Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) Nos. 208/2013 & 211/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 4th December, 2014 C.M(M) No. 208/2013 SUDARSHAN KUMAR JAIN Through: Mr. Rahul
More informationORGAN DONATION (DEEMED CONSENT) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES
ORGAN DONATION (DEEMED CONSENT) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill as brought from the House of Commons. These Explanatory
More informationTRANSFER OF TELEPHONE CONNECTION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL HIRER OF TELEPHONES
TRANSFER OF TELEPHONE CONNECTION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL HIRER OF TELEPHONES WHOM TO APPLY APPLY TO THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER (CENTRAL) MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED, NEW DELHI-110050
More informationTHE ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (SMALL ESTATES) (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT. Statutory Instrument
THE ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (SMALL ESTATES) (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT. Statutory Instrument 156 1. The Administration of Estates (Small Estates) (Special Provisions) (Probate and Administration) Rules.
More informationThe European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 1338/03 by THE ESTATE OF KRESTEN FILTENBORG MORTENSEN against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Date of Reserve: 5th July, Date of judgment: November 06, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Date of Reserve: 5th July, 2007 Date of judgment: November 06, 2007 CS(OS) No.1440/2000 Mela Ram... Through: Plaintiff Ms.Sonia Khurana
More information1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 21.1.2010 + TEST CAS.No.35/1999 SHAMA SETHI Versus Through:...Petitioner Mr. Anil K. Kher, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rishi Manchanda & Mr.S.S.Pandit,
More informationCircuit Court, D. Rhode Island. June Term, 1824.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL CASES Case No. 5,223. [3 Mason, 398.] 1 GARDNER V. COLLINS. Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island. June Term, 1824. DEED DELIVERY STATUTE OF DESCENTS HALF BLOOD. 1. A delivery of a deed
More information1. Writ Petition (C) No.3638 of 2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. Writ Petition (C) No.3638 of 2015 1. Bahari Reserve Gaon Min Samabai Samity Limited, Village & PO- Bahari, PS-
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Judgment: R.S.A.No. 90/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Judgment: 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 90/2007 SH. NARAIN SINGH & ORS...Appellants Through: Ms. Sukhda Dhamiza, Advocate along with
More informationRugova v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 33937(U) May 24, 2013 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Larry S.
Rugova v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 33937(U) May 24, 2013 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 303175/09 Judge: Larry S. Schachner Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationNOMZINGSI PRINCESS MNYIPIZA JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA CASE NO. 468/2014 In the matter between: STANDARD BANK SA LTD Applicant And NOMZINGSI PRINCESS MNYIPIZA Respondent JUDGMENT GRIFFITHS,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 44105/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED. 29 Oct 2012.. (signed)... DATE SIGNATURE In the
More informationGENERAL NOTICE. Rural Development and Land Reform, Department of/ Landelike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming, Departement van
Rural Development and Land Reform, Department of/ Landelike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming, Departement van 101 The Deeds Registries Amendment Bill, 2016 and Explanatory Memorandum: For public comment
More informationPLANT IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1976 ( ACT NO. 53 OF 1976)
1 PLANT IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1976 ( ACT NO. 53 OF 1976) [ASSENTED TO 29 MARCH, 1976] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JUNE, 1980] (except ss. 23 and 24 on 1 December, 1983 and except s. 42, in so far as it relates
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA
V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3725-3726 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of2011] H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors...
More informationGuardianship/Conservatorship Changes in SB 806
Missouri Senate Bill No. 806 Effective: August 28, 2018 All statutory references are to RSMo 2018 unless otherwise indicated. Guardianship/Conservatorship Changes in SB 806 Summary by Annie Ebert and David
More informationMissouri Revised Statutes
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 404 Transfers to Minors--Personal Custodian and Durable Power of Attorney August 28, 2013 Law, how cited. 404.005. Sections 404.005 to 404.094 may be cited as the "Missouri
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 89232/2015 ( 1) REPORT ABLE: no (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: no (3) REVISED 19MAY2017 GB ROME AJ In
More informationDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY THE LANDLORDS IN FAVOUR OF A BUILDER. THIS AGREEMENT made at. this... day of..., 2000,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY THE LANDLORDS IN FAVOUR OF A BUILDER THIS AGREEMENT made at. this... day of..., 2000, between (1) X, son of P, resident of..; (2) Y, son of Q, resident of.. (3) Z, son of R, resident
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) And
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SUIT 877 OF 1998 BETWEEN: JOSEPH PLACIDE also known as EUNIFRED MERIUS suing herein AS THE SOLE Administrator of the Succession of the late PLACIDE MERIUS
More informationREPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO DECREE ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE LAW ON GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
REPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO DECREE ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE LAW ON GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Montenegrin Investment Promotion Agency (www.mipa.cg.yu) 1 On the basis of Article 88, item 2 of the Constitution
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO.: 257 of 1999 BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD and Claimant Appearances For the Claimant: Ms. A. Cadie-Bruney For the Defendant: Mr. D. Theodore CHRISTOPHER
More informationORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI SMA No.74/2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Order with signature of Judge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT RSA No. 94/ 2007 1. Musssamat Amirun Nessa, Wife of Late Safiquir Rahman 2. Hilal Uddin, Son
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 SHAMBHU DUTT DOGRA Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate....
More informationGeneral Scheme of Civil Partnership Bill
General Scheme of Civil Partnership Bill June 2008 Part 1: Preliminary and General...5 Head 1: Short title and commencement...5 Head 2: Interpretation...6 Part 2: Civil Registration...7 Chapter 1: Amendment
More informationESTATES & TRUSTS P.N. Davis Winter 2012 ANSWER OUTLINE
ESTATES & TRUSTS P.N. Davis Winter 2012 ANSWER OUTLINE I. (70 min.) - Rule in Wild s Case: - devise to A and A s children creates a tenancy in common between the parent and his children, each taking a
More informationCASE NO: JS1034/2001. ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: and CASE NO: JS1034/2001 Applicant First Respondent ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT FRANCIS J Introduction 1. The
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Appeal number: A1/2016
More informationSCHEDULE CHAPTER 117 THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS ACT An Act relating to the registration of documents. [1st January, 1924]
SCHEDULE CHAPTER 117 THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS ACT An Act relating to the registration of documents. [1st January, 1924] R.L. Cap. 334 Ords. Nos. 14 of 1923 16 of 1926 11 of 1932 38 of 1939 33 of 1941
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Alauddin, S/o Late Nazar Ali, 2. Mrs. Phulmati W/o Alauddin Both are resident of- Village:-
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION PRESENT: Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah. Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. Mr. Justice Md. Shamsul Huda. CIVIL
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Page 1 of 15 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) NO.4448/2007 1. Sri Abhiram Pegu, S/o Damodar Pegu, R/O- Nalipipar, P.O & P.S- Dhemaji, District-
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Adams (Dec d) [2012] QSC 103 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS 6915/11 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: TREVOR ROBIN HOPPER AS EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF EDGAR GEORGE ADMAS (DECEASED) (applicant)
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 153 of 2000 1. Md. Anisur Rahman, S/O Lt. Mvi. Wazed Ali, Village-Batabari,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER REASONS
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV 2009-01049 BETWEEN RUDOLPH SYDNEY CLAIMANT AND JOSEPH THOMAS DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER APPEARANCES
More informationTHE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT Third Respondent
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
More information