Hopolang Mokhopi
THE sensational civil case in which the late former Minister of Police and Public Safety, Lepota Sekola’s ex-wife is locked in a fierce legal battle with his widow over the inheritance of his estate was on Thursday postponed to 19 February.
Khasiane Ramathe, who was married to Mr Sekola from February 2014 until April 2022 when they divorced, claims she is entitled to half of his estate.
She argues that the Master of the High Court cannot proceed with the administration of the estate before she receives her 50 percent share.
Mr Sekola died in November 2025 at the age of 62 after a brief illness, reportedly caused by depression and a stroke. He was honoured with an official funeral in recognition of his service in the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) and for his political career.
He served as a Member of Parliament and was also a well-known taxi operator.
Ms Ramathe lawyer, Advocate Letsatsi Masoeu, informed the Court that the Master of the High Court and Attorney General Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa KC, who are the third and fourth respondents, had already filed their answers, raising several points in limine (objections), including a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Mr Sekola’s widow, Mathabang Sekola and the Estate’s Executor are the first and second respondents, respectively.
He proposed that the parties briefly introduce their respective cases to enable the court to issue directions on the conduct of the proceedings, particularly on how and when the jurisdictional objection should be determined.
“I anticipate that my learned friend will contend that the Court should not proceed until the point of jurisdiction is disposed of,” Adv Masoeu submitted, adding that the issue is raised in the second respondent’s answering affidavit.
Adv Masoeu acknowledged that a replying affidavit had not yet been filed but undertook to do so by tomorrow (Monday).
He explained that he had been served with two sets of opposing papers on the 13th and 14th and had opted to respond to all issues in a single affidavit due to their complexity, especially the jurisdictional objections.
Adv Lepeli Molapo objected strongly, arguing that Ms Ramathe had approached the Court on an urgent basis, set its own timelines, and secured a hearing date, thereby placing respondents under undue pressure.
Adv Molapo submitted that Ms Ramathe should have sought procedural directions from the outset rather than imposing a hearing date and later seeking indulgence.
“In our submission, today ought to have dealt with the interim reliefs,” counsel argued, adding that if interim relief was no longer being pursued, the matter should proceed on the merits subject to the determination of preliminary objections, including jurisdiction and locus standi.”
Adv Masoeu responded that established jurisprudence requires jurisdiction to be determined before any other issue, as the Court cannot grant relief unless satisfied of its competence.
He stressed that Ms Ramathe was not abandoning any issues and was ready to proceed on urgency should the court so direct, but cautioned against a course that might be seen as assuming jurisdiction before it is determined.
Advocate Tutuoe, appearing on behalf of the Master of the Court, informed the Court that they would abide by whatever ruling the court makes regarding the administration of the estate of the late Sekola.
“We are not opposing the application. We will abide by the ruling of the Court,” Advocate Tutuoe said.
After hearing submissions from all parties, including those who indicated they were not ready to proceed substantively, the Court postponed the matter to 19 February and indicated that directions would be issued regarding the further conduct of the proceedings.
Ms Ramathe says she approached the courts after the Master of the High Court insisted on proceeding with the administration of the estate despite objections she raised at a meeting held on 5 January 2026 at the Master of the High Court’s offices in Maseru.
At that meeting, she formally objected to the administration of the estate.