LESOTHO
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO
HELD AT MASERU C of A (CIV) 23/2024
In the matter between –
MATAELI MAKHELE-SEKHANTSO APPELLANT
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL 1ST RESPONDENT
MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND CHIEFTAINSHIP 2ND RESPONDENT
CORAM: MUSONDA, AJA
CHINHENGO, AJA
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, AJA
HEARD: 9 APRIL 2025
DELIVERED: 2 MAY 2025
FLYNOTE
Postponement of hearing – Death of counsel – Staff shortage in Attorney General’s office – Replacement counsel unable to
prepare due to pre-engagement in criminal trial – Application to postpone appeal – Concession on costs – Whether costs order suffices to cure prejudice.
Held: Where an application for postponement is made on compassionate and logistical grounds – namely, the death of legal counsel and constraints of time and capacity in securing effective representation – the court may grant the postponement if no material prejudice arises to the opposing party that a costs order cannot cure. In the present matter, the appellant's counsel opposed the application but ultimately conceded that an appropriate award of costs could remedy any potential prejudice. The Court accordingly postponed the matter and directed the applicants (respondents in the appeal) to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement.
Postponement – Costs – Compassionate grounds – Administrative incapacity – Procedural fairness.
JUDGMENT
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, AJA:
[1] This matter was enrolled to be heard as an appeal on Wednesday, 9 April 2025. The respondents formally applied to postpone the matter to the October 2025 session of this Court.
[2] The application was based on the death of counsel for the respondents on 20 March 2025, followed by his burial on 5 April 2025. According to the applicants, the office of the Attorney General “had not been aware of the gap left by” the death of counsel and was also experiencing a staff shortage. On 3 April 2025, another counsel was instructed, but he was involved in “a marathon high-profile criminal trial” and had no time to prepare a written argument, given the short notice.
[3] The applicants submitted that a cost order could cure any possible prejudice the respondent (appellant) may suffer.
[4] The application for postponement was opposed, but counsel conceded that an appropriate cost order could eliminate any prejudice.
Thus, it was ordered that –
(a)
The matter be postponed to the October 2025 session of this Court; and
(b)
The costs of the postponement were to be paid by the applicants.
_____________________________
J VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL
I agree
_____________________________
P MUSONDA
ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL
I agree:
____________________________
M CHINHENGO
ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL
For the applicants (respondents in the appeal):
Adv PTBN Thakhalekoala
For the respondent (appellant in the appeal):
Adv N Mafaesa