MASERU-The High Court of Lesotho has issued a detailed consent order in a sensitive case involving Naledi Funeral Planners (Pty) Ltd and two bereaved families, directing that two bodies be exhumed, proper burials be conducted, and compensation be paid.
The matter was heard in the High Court sitting in Maseru before Justice Banyane. The applicant in the case was Naledi Funeral Planners (Pty) Ltd. The respondents included Pulane Ramohapi, Lerenyane Khohlooa, Senekane D07 Community Council, Chief Matlole Matlole, the Ministry of Health, the Officer Commanding Pitso Ground Police, the Commissioner of Police, and the Attorney General.
After hearing the parties and by consent, the court made an order setting out clear steps that must be followed to resolve the dispute surrounding the burials of the late Seabata Samuel Ramohapi and Khotso Elliot Khohlooa.
The court directed that Naledi Funeral Planners is permitted and ordered to exhume the body of the late Seabata Samuel Ramohapi at Ha Khohlooa, where he was buried, and return it to the applicant’s mortuary.
The exhumation must be carried out no later than 29 January 2026. It must take place in the presence of all interested parties. These include Naledi Funeral Planners, the affected families of Khohlooa and Ramohapi, and all other cited respondents. This condition was included to ensure transparency and to avoid further disputes.
Once the exhumation has been done, the bereaved families will be free to bury their loved ones according to their own wishes. The court order clearly states that the families may bury Seabata Samuel Ramohapi and Khotso Elliot Khohlooa “in a manner and places of their choice.”
This gives the families full authority to decide where and how the final burials will take place, bringing an end to uncertainty over the resting places of the deceased.
The court further ordered that Naledi Funeral Planners must bear the full costs of the exhumation process.
In addition, the funeral company must cover the burial expenses of both deceased persons. The order sets out specific amounts and obligations for each family.
For the Khohlooa family, Naledi Funeral Planners is directed to pay M21, 900 for necessary burial costs and related expenses. Over and above this cash payment, the company must also buy a cow, valued at M13, 000, together with the Khohlooa family, and deliver it to them for burial purposes.
For the Ramohapi family, the applicant is directed to pay M29, 400 for burial costs and related expenses.
The court instructed that these amounts must be deposited into bank accounts to be provided by the concerned families. Payment must be made no later than 28 January 2026.
Beyond the financial obligations, Naledi Funeral Planners has also been ordered to provide caskets for the burial of both deceased persons.
The company must further provide transport for the delivery of the remains of Khotso Elliot Khohlooa and Seabata Samuel Ramohapi to their respective families. It must also provide transport from the families’ homes to the graveyard on the day of burial.
These measures are meant to ensure that the families do not carry any further logistical burden in laying their loved ones to rest.
In a significant part of the order, the court directed that Naledi Funeral Planners must compensate the two affected families in the amount of M60, 000 each.
This compensation is separate from burial costs. The money is to be paid in six monthly instalments of M10, 000.
For the Khohlooa family, payment is to start on 28 January 2026. For the Ramohapi family, payment is to commence at the end of February 2026.
This staggered payment plan was set to allow the applicant to meet its obligations while ensuring that the families receive compensation over a defined period.
To ensure that the order is followed, the court directed all parties to appear before it on 4 February 2026. On that date, the parties are expected to report on the level of compliance with the order.
This return date gives the court an opportunity to check whether the exhumation has taken place, whether payments have begun, and whether the other conditions, such as provision of caskets and transport, are being met.
Importantly, the order was made by consent of the parties. This means the court did not impose the terms after a contested judgment, but rather recorded an agreement reached between those involved.
The structure of the order reflects an attempt to balance accountability with the urgent need to give the families dignity, closure, and the freedom to bury their loved ones in accordance with their wishes.
The detailed nature of the ruling, covering exhumation, costs, compensation, transport, and continued court supervision, shows the seriousness with which the court treated the matter.
For the affected families, the order opens a path toward proper burial arrangements and a measure of compensation, after what has clearly been a painful and difficult experience. The matter is expected to return to court in early February, when progress on the execution of the order will be formally reviewed.
