HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
EPHRAIM SOLE APPLICANT
MOLEFI WILLIAM LEMENA 1ST RESPONDENT
by the Honourable Mr Justice S.N. Peete on the 26th September, 2001.
28th August 2001, Mr Khauoe for the applicant in CIV/APN/318/01 and
Mr Moiloa for applicants in CIV/APN/319/01 appeared in my chambers
with the Registrar and agreed that these two applications be heard
simultaneously. In CIV/APN/318/01 the applicant prayed for and was
granted an interim order in the following terms:-
in CIV/APN/319/01 2Applicant in CIV/APN/319/01
Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the Respondents to show cause if
rule pertaining to notices and service shall not be dispensed with
an account of urgency;
sale in execution (scheduled for the 1st September 2001) shall not
be stayed pending the outcome of this applications.
1 (a) and (b) be made an interim order pending the outcome of this
the writ of execution in CIV/T/598/98 and C of A (civ) No.26 of 1999
be set aside as irregular
in execution in CIV/T/598/95 and C. of A. (CIV) No.26/99 be set aside
or stayed pending the removal of the irregularities.
the Respondents be ordered to pay the costs only in the event of
opposing this application.
the applicant be granted such further or alternatives relief.
urgent application in CIV/APN/319/01 Mr Moiloa had prayed for an
order couched as follows:-
with time periods stipulated in the rules of this Honourable court
and admitting this matter to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
the Respondent (Mr Sole) to hand over to First applicant all
attached assets listed in the notice of sale published in the
Government Gazette and other newspapers circulating in Lesotho.
Respondent to forthwith handover, to First applicant Land Leases in
Respondent to forthwith handover to first applicant Registration
Certificates of the following vehicles.
E320A Mercedes Benz Registration H1000.
540A BMW Reg A8080
Toyota Twin Cab 4x4 Reg 5151
applications were supported by supporting affidavits. CIV/APN/318/01
application, the applicant Mr Sole deposed as follows:-
the list of my movable property there are some of the property which
I aver are necessities and as such should not be sold in execution.
To this end I hereby annex a list of some of such property and mark
that from annexure "ME51" some property is used by members
of my family such as my children. These are the bicycles which are my
property in the sense that I bought them for their own use as they
are still minors.
that immovable property attached and to be sold can only be sold
after the movables have been sold and the judgment debt has been
in execution of my property which is due on the 1st day of September
2001, my property which includes both movables and immovables, is
executing, I aver that such execution ought not to leave a man, not
to say, his dependants (in) destitute. The sale in execution if
allowed to proceed will leave me and my family (in) destitute as
everything I possess is to be sold."
further that a residential house is a necessity; so are means of
transport, a radio and television set; beds and cutlery. Mr Khauoe's
application is opposed and answering papers have duly been filed in
which several points in limine have been raised e.g. regarding
urgency and non-disclosure of material facts. Mr Mapetla, the acting
Chief Executive of LHDA, in his answering affidavit states that-
" Applicant is not indigent.... As the trial court revealed,
some of Applicant's actions involved hiding funds overseas ....
Applicant keeps secret accounts and investments ... (and) is engaged
in defeating proper administration of justice."
these applications involve intricate questions of law in the
execution process. Execution is a process which enables a judgment
creditor, having obtained a judgment in his favour, to enforce that
judgment in order to obtain satisfaction of it from the debtor.
(Herbstein and van Winsen - Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of
South Africa 4th ed -p 754 where at page 754 it is stated:-
" Execution may be effected against the property or the person
of the judgment debtor, the appropriate manner of execution in a
particular case depending upon the type of judgment and the nature of
the debtor's available assets. Thus, a judgment sounding in money is
enforceable by the attachment and sale in execution of the debtor's
property, movable, immovable and incorporeal. ...An attachment in
execution creates a judicial mortgage orpignus judiciale".
and extant judgment is a pre-requisite for execution. Brendenkamp vs
Comax Wholesaler 1965 (2) SA 876. Indeed Section 10 of our 1993
Constitution states :-
person shall be entitled to freedom from arbitrary search or entry,
that is to say, he shall not (except with his own consent) be
subjected to the search of his person or his property or the entry
by others on his premises.
contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to
be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the
extent that the law in question makes provision
authorises, for the purpose of enforcing the judgment or order of a
court in any civil proceedings, the entry upon any premises by
order of court. "
courts have required that during the execution process, the sheriff
should adhere strictly to the procedure both under Rule 46 and Rule
47of High Court Rules 1980, otherwise the attachment which violates
their peremptory provisions or the terms of the writ is invalid. In
Brummer v Gorfil Bothers Investments 1997 (2) SA 411 it was held that
until sale in execution the court had discretion to control the
execution process and that
"where steps in the process of execution have been taken but
have not been completed, there is no doubt the court can interfere
therewith in appropriate cases in the interests of justice.
Where the execution procedure has already been completed the position
is different. The rights of other persons are then involved. The
court can then only interfere if there was a reviewable irregularity
in the process which prejudiced the debtor, in other words where the
process was not carried out in accordance with the provisions
applicable thereto. Ulterior motives, hidden agendas, hate or anger
can then no longer be advanced as grounds upon which the completed
execution procedure should be set aside."
(1980 High Court Rules) reads in part:-
A party in whose favour any judgment of the court has been given may,
at his own risk, sue out of the office of the Registrar one or more
writs for execution thereof as near as may be in accordance with Form
V (1) of the First Schedule annexed hereto,
that, except where by judgment of the court immovable property has
been specially declared executable, no such process shall issue
against the immovable property of any person until a return shall
have been made of any process which may have been issued against his
movable property, and the Registrar perceives therefrom that the said
person has not sufficient movable property to satisfy the writ.
by any process of the court the sheriff or deputy sheriff is
commanded to levy and raise any sum or money upon the goods of any
person, he shall forthwith himself or by his assistant proceed to
the dwelling house or place of business or employment of such
person, unless the judgment creditor shall give different
instructions regarding the situation of the assets to be attached,
satisfaction of the writ and failing satisfaction,
that so much movable and disposable property be pointed out as he
may deem sufficient to satisfy the said writ, and failing such
for such property.
property shall be immediately inventoried and, unless the execution
creditor shall otherwise have directed, and subject to the provisions
of sub-rule (5) hereunder, shall be taken into the custody of the
(i) that if there is any claim made by any other person to any such
property seized or about to be seized by the deputy-sheriff then if
the judgment creditor gives a deputy sheriff an indemnity to his
satisfaction to save him harmless from any loss or damage by reason
of the seizure thereof the deputy shall retain or shall seize, as the
case may be, make a inventory of and keep the said property; and
(ii) that if satisfaction of the writ was not demanded from the
judgment debtor personally, the deputy-sheriff shall give to the
judgment debtor written notice of the attachment and a copy of the
inventory made by him, unless his whereabouts are unknown. " (My
application it is common cause that there exists a final judgment
sounding in money in which the Court of Appeal (C. of A. (civ)
No.26/99) confirmed the judgment of my Brother Ramodibedi J in
CIV/T/598/95. The judgment debt stands at M7,751,049.25. On the 20th
April 2001, the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority as judgment
creditor sued out - at its own risk - a Writ of Execution which reads
in part as follows:-
"TO THE SHERIFF OR HIS DEPUTY
You are hereby directed to attach and take into execution the movable
goods of Mr MASUPHA EPHRAIM SOLE (the abovenamed Judgment Debtor) of
123 Lower Thetsane, Maseru Urban Area, Maseru and of the same cause
to be realised by public aution the sum of M7,751,049.25......."
common cause that no writ was at anytime whatsoever sued out to
attach the immovables of the judgment debtor.
to the deputy sheriff's affidavit, it is clear that as early as the
7th February 2000 he had demanded the judgment debtor Mr Sole to
point out to him his movable property sufficient to meet the demands
of the writ in CIV/T/598/95. He says Mr Sole pointed out to him all
the items which appear in the notice of sale in execution. It is not
in dispute that after the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on
the 12th April 2001 another writ (final) was sued out on the 20th
April 2001. This was a writ to attach "movable" goods only.
He says he executed this new writ on or about 28th June 2001 and
again demanded Mr Sole to point to him his movable property. He
complied as before; he then pointed out to Mr Sole that the movable
assets he had pointed out to him were minuscule "in value terms
to the writ amount"
".... Applicant agreed that he was well aware. I told him that I
had no option but to again attach his immovable property. He
also be noted that the Deputy-Sheriff made a "Report of
Execution" after his first visit to the Mr Sole in February when
he asked to be shown movable assets. The last paragraph of his Report
"We made it clear to him that the inventory of his assets was
very little to satisfy the amount of the warrant of execution against
his property which we served upon him. He said he was well aware but
he had disclosed all his movables. I pointed to him that execution
would still proceed against his immovable assets. I accordingly
report and certify that the Defendant is unable to point out to me
movable assets of a value sufficient to satisfy the demands of the
inventory he confirmed and signed is attached herewith.
the High Court
dated 3 March 2000"
be noted that the final judgment of the Court of Appeal was only
handed down on the 12th April 2001, and that a final writ of
execution subsequently sued out on the 20th April, 2001.
affidavit the Deputy-Sheriff states that he re-made the same
inventory on the 26th April 2001 following the judgment of the Appeal
Court on the 12th April 2001, and that he held several meetings with
Mr Sole on 16th April, 5th May, 25th June 2001 in an attempt to
persuade Mr Sole to pay the judgment debt.
further states that on 26th June 2001, following the meeting he had
with Applicant it became clear to him that Applicant was making
promises which he was unable to fulfil, he proceeded to place
advertisements in the Gazette and in two (2) local newspapers for the
sale in execution on 1st September 2001. He states that he also
demanded Mr Sole to handover all attached vehicles except one for
safekeeping, and that it was however agreed that the attached assets
would remain in tact until the day before the sale. He goes further
to state that on 24th July 2001 he visited Mr Sole with one Mr Pitso
of Oxbow Land and Property Consultants and requested access to attach
assets to enable valuation to be made. He refused.
the whole scenario it is important to bear the provisions of Rule 46
(1) in mind. It is clear from the affidavit of the Deputy Sheriff
that his "Notice of Sale in Execution" published in the
Lesotho Government Gazette of the 29th June 200 land in two local
newspapers, that both movable and immovable assets were to be sold on
the 1st September 2001. In my view it was irregular for the Deputy
Sheriff to have included the immovable assets in his Notice of Sale
acting on his own initiative without deference to the Registrar who
under Rule 46 (1) is the person to "perceive ... that the said
person has not sufficient movable property to satisfy the writ".
Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th Ed. defines the word "perceive"
"Apprehend esp. through the sight; observe; apprehend with the
mind; understand; regard mentally in a specified manner.....
Perception therefore means impression based on one's understanding of
Deputy Sheriff seems to have taken upon himself to "perceive"
and states " I told him I had no option but to again attach his
immovable property." .... "I accordingly report and certify
that the Defendant is unable to point out to me movable assets of a
value sufficient to satisfy the demands of the writ amount" ...
"I proceeded to place advertisements of Notice of Sale in the
Gazette" which purported to sell immovable property in execution
on the 1st September, 2001.
further be noted that neither the judgment of my Brother Ramodibedi
J. or of the Court of Appeal specially declared the immovable
property executable -Entabeni Hospital Ltd vs Van der Linde; First
National Bank vs Puckriah – 1994 (2) SA 422. Under our Rule 46
(1) it seems the immovable property is attachable (a) where by
judgment of the court immovable property has been specially declared
executable or (b) where a writ to execute immovable property has
issued after a return has been made by the Deputy Sheriff and the
Registrar perceives therefrom that the said person has not sufficient
movable property to satisfy the writ. As already pointed out the
deputy sheriff should have exercised greatest care when making his
return "in view of important consequences that may flow from a
debtors failure to satisfy a writ". Van Winsen (supra); Lotzof
vs Ranbenheimer - 1959 (1) SA 90 at 919.
instant case the deputy sheriff was directed by the writ of execution
to attach "the movable goods of Mr MASUPHA EPHRAIM SOLE"
but his notice of sale published in the Gazette and newspapers
indicates sale of "immovable" goods. In the case of
Dorasamy vs Messenger of Court, Pinetown - 1956 (4) SA 286, it was
held by Caney J that a sale in execution of immovable property the
attachment of which was not preceded by execution against the
debtor's movable property was invalid and attachment of immovable
property was set aside.
attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties can and
should never be simultaneous. In Guy vs Colley 1934 NPD 268 at 275
Harthorn J. noted that the deputy sheriff or judgment creditor, where
there are movables insufficient to satisfy the writ, cannot, so to
speak, take the matter into his own hands; he must approach the
court, for the court controls execution and will deal with special
cases on their merits.
case of Dorasany (supra) it was has further ruled that the fact that
the debtor agreed to the attachment of his immovable goods is of no
consequence because "there is a strong improbability that a man
will lightly waive a right conferred upon him by law". Indeed in
the case of Sandton Finance Pty (Ltd) vs Clerk of the Magistrates
Court-Johannesburg, 1992(1) SA 507 Eloff JP at 511 it was held that
at common law a judgment creditor had first to exhaust the debtor's
movables before seeking to execute on immovables and that Rule 45 (1)
(our 46 (1)) provides that save where fixed property is specifically
declared executable the Registrar may only issue a warrant of
attachment of immovables where "he perceives from the Sheriff's
return on a warrant of execution against movables "that the said
person has not sufficient property to satisfy the writ." The
learned Judge President held that the ipsi dixit of
sheriff is hardly ever exact or even near the mark. "Only by
proceeding with a sale in execution can real acceptable proof be
forthcoming sufficient to satisfy the clerk of court."
in execution of immovable property is further tarnished by the fact
that it did not comply with the provisions of Rule 47 (3) requiring
service of notice of attachment by registered post addressed to the
owner of the fixed assets - Joosub v JI Case SA (Pty) Ltd - 1992 (2)
to me that the proviso under Rule 46 (1) is peremptory because it
states no such process (writ of execution) shall issue against the
immovable property of any person until a return shall have been made
of any process which may have been issued against his movable
property and the Registrar perceives therefrom that the said person
has not sufficient movable property to satisfy the writ.
It is for
these reasons that I hold that the purported notice of sale dated
26th June 2001 as published in the Government Gazette and local
newspapers must be set aside as being irregular and hence the
attachment of the immovable property without a supportive writ of
execution on immovables was highly improper and created no pignus
judiciale - See Seyfrets - 1997 (1) SA 764 at 772; Liquidators Union
vs Brown 1922 A.D. at 558/9; Morrison - 1967 (2) SA 208.
not be misunderstood to say that the Writ of Execution dated 20th
April 2001 was a bad writ. It still stands extant. What was irregular
was the notice of sale
made thereunder. It must be set aside - Du Preez vs Du Preez - 1977
of certain items
above, the writ of execution of the 20th April 2001 directed the
deputy sheriff to attach and take into execution the movable goods of
Mr Masupha Ephraim Sole. Mr Khauoe for Mr Sole contends that the list
of items in the Notice of sale is indiscriminate and has improperly
included items of property which under common law ought not to have
been attached e.g. bedding, means of transport, etc.
pointed out to both counsel, our law in Lesotho on this aspect is not
at all clear -at least in the High Court practice. Under our
Subordinate Court Order No.9 of 1988 section 40 reads:-
"40. In respect of any process of execution issued out of any
court, the following property shall protected from seizure and shall
not be attached or sold,
necessary beds, bedding and wearing apparel of the person against
whose property execution is levied and of his family;
necessary furniture and households utensils in so far as the same
do not exceed in value the sum of M700;
supply of food and drink in the house sufficient for the needs of
such person and of his family during one month;
and implements of trade, and tools necessarily used in the
cultivation of land, in so far as any such tools or implements do
not exceed in value the sum ofM700;
books, documents, or instruments, necessarily used by such person
in his profession, in so far as the same do not exceed in value the
dwelling house erected on a site allocated for the purpose of
that this paragraph shall not apply where the dwelling house has been
bonded as security for a loan and the judgment is in respect of such
other hand our High Court Act No.5 of 1978 and the High Court Rules
1980 are silent on this issue. It seems in South Africa, the Supreme
Court Act (section 39 of Act 59 of 1959) provides that the deputy
sheriff shall not seize in execution of any process i.e.(a)the
necessary beds and bedding and wearing apparel of the person against
whom execution is levied or any member of his family; (b) the
necessary furniture, other than beds, and households utensils in so
far as they do not exceed M2,000; (c) tools and agricultural
implements; (d) food and drink; (e) tools of trade; (f) professional
books in so far as they do not exceed M2000 - which amount the court
may in its discretion increase.
position at common law is far from clear. It seems in England the
Small Debts Act 1845 protected certain items like wearing apparel,
bedding (Halsbury's Statutes Vol.22). In South Africa, Mr Moiloa
cited the Cape Ordinance No.37 of 1828 which
introduced protection of certain items from attachment by court
sheriffs. The text of this Ordinance has unfortunately not been
provided to the court for perusal. Anyway in First and Third
Schedules of the Law Revision Proclamation No. 12 of 1960 no law
dealing with execution or attachment of debtors properties is listed.
It seems to me therefore that when the Proclamation 2 B of 1884 was
passed on the 29th May 1884 this Ordinance did not become part of the
law of Basutoland.
rather illogical that in Lesotho a judgment debtor liable to satisfy
a writ sued out of the Subordinate Court enjoys better protection
under law as regards exemption of necessary goods than a judgment
debtor would under a High Court writ. The latter stands to lose every
movable property if the judgment debt is not satisfied. Courts of law
should on the other hand not be seen to enforce injustice moreso
because 1993 under our Constitution equality before the law must be
guaranteed at all times. As Schreiner ACJ in C.I.T. vs Louis Zinn
Organization, 1958 (4) SA 477 at 485 stated, where an anomaly can
only lead to the conclusion that Parliament had been guilty of a
casus omissus, "no doubt such oversights, just like tautology,
occur in the Acts of Parliament, but a construction which avoids them
is to be preferred to one that does not."
inclined to conclude that common law of Lesotho provides that certain
necessary items of the nature listed under section 40 of the
Subordinate Court Order 1988 cannot be attached and the same
principles should apply in this case.
applicant Mr Sole has also made an application that he should be
ordered to pay the amount owing in instalments. Granting such an
application would have the
effect of setting aside the writ of execution of his movable and
immovable properties. Perhaps this issue ought to have been addressed
before everything else.
law having obtained a judgment in his favour a judgment creditor has
a clear right (a) to demand payment forthwith of the judgment debt,
and (b) failing prompt payment, he can sue out "at his own risk"
a writ of execution against the movable assets of the judgment debtor
and (c) if upon receiving the return of the deputy sheriff, the
Registrar perceives that movable assets are not sufficient to satisfy
the judgment, the judgment creditor can proceed and sue out a writ
against immovable property of the judgment debtor. It seems to me
that once he has obtained a judgment the judgment creditor "calls
the shots" and the court cannot, without prejudicing his right
to full and prompt payment, order the debt to be paid by way of
instalments. Our Rule 46 (12) reads in part:
the court is of the opinion that a debtor is able to satisfy a debt
by instalments out of his earnings, it may make an order for payment
of such debt by instalments.
an order has been made for payment by instalments and the debtor
makes default in such payment, any salary, earnings, or emoluments
due or accruing to such debtor to the extent of the arrears may,
without further notice to the debtor, but subject to the rights of
the garnishee, be attached under the provisions of paragraph (a) of
be noted that a similar sub-rule in South Africa had existed since
1966 but was deleted by Government Notice R608 of 31 March 1989. It
seems to me that under common law a special application to court for
leave is necessary to enable the
creditor to execute upon money due to the judgment debtor at the
hands of a third party e.g. earnings - Van der Heeve'r vs Bester 1960
(3) SA 154; African Distillers vs Honiball -1972 (3) SA 135 per
Goldin J. It is not good practice for the judgment debtor to make an
application for the attachment of his own earnings.
it is brought to the knowledge of the sheriff that there are debts
which are subject to attachment, and are owing or accruing from a
third person to the judgment debtor, the sheriff may, if requested
thereto by the judgment debtor, attach the same an thereupon shall
serve a notice on such third person, hereinafter called the
garnishee, requiring payment to him by the sheriff of so much of
the debt as may be sufficient to satisfy the writ, and the sheriff
may upon any such payment, give a receipt to the garnishee which
shall be a discharge, pro-tanto, of the debt attached."
judgment debtor does not seem to have complied with this subrule if
at all, he wished to reduce his debt.
Africa a sub-rule similar to our sub-rule 46 (12) (L) was discussed
in the case of Standard Bank of SA Ltd vs Clemans - 1982 (4) SA 408
and Mullins AJ noted that the procedure provided for in their Rule 46
(12) is a further form of execution and the subrule does not suggest
that the court can make an order against potential assets or income,
where no such assets exit or where the debtor is not actually in
receipt of an income. "It can of course make an order against
future assets or income e.g. by garnishee proceedings in terms of
Rule 45(12) (a) but in such event there must be debt (liquid) owing
or accruing from a third party to the judgment
Where, as Kumleben AJ. stated in Haarhoff vs Fourie 1974 (2) SA 594
the judgment debtor is not in receipt of any salary or emoluments, or
his earnings were speculative and prospective it was impossible for
the court to conclude that he was able to satisfy his debt out of his
earnings. The court has no power in effect to order a judgment debtor
to order payment by instalment from a hypothetical source of income.
"The language of the subrule in no way suggests such far
Where a debtor does not wish to endure a lifetime of penury, he
voluntarily makes arrangements with his creditor to avoid the
ever-present threat of a writ against his assets or income. For
example he can place selected movable and immovable assets for sale
on open market and secure highest price rather than putting all those
assets under the hammer of the deputy sheriff at a public auction.
"Notice to Amend" it is stated:-"Alternatively
of execution be (set) aside and the Applicant be ordered to pay debt
Prayer is somewhat equivocal - because sale in execution has not yet
come about. It seems to me that Mr Khauoe wishes to have the "writ
of execution" set aside
ground that the judgment debtor ought to be granted leave to pay the
judgment debt "not immediately but by instalments." Mr Sole
in his supplementary affidavit in support of his application to amend
his original notice of motion (to include an alternative as
suggested) states that the LHDA is presently repaying a loan (part of
which is the judgment debt) to the Development Bank of Southern
Africa (DBSA) in thirty-four (34) equal instalments.
submits that he should similarly be ordered to pay the debt by
instalments because "this will be to the prejudice of nobody
because the second Respondent (LHDA) will be losing nothing more"
and that this will be a just and equitable treatment "especially
when one takes that a person should not be left destitute."
by instalments - per se - necessitates the setting aside of the writ
which has been proved to have been wrongly sued out. In the case of
Mears vs Pretoria Estate and Market Co. Ltd 1906 TS 661 Innes CJ
expressed the opinion that "as general rule it is advisable and
convenient that application to set aside order and to rectify its
consequences, should be by action" - especially where facts are
in dispute - and this is apparent from Mr Mapetla's answering
affidavit to Mr Sole's supplementary affidavit.
affidavits as they stand on the instalments prayer, it is not easy to
determine the issue and thus prayer cannot be granted and is
therefore refused; granting it would necessitate sitting aside the
writ of execution properly sued out by the judgment creditor.
event the "notice to amend" (inelegantly) seeks to set
aside the "sale in execution" and not the writ in
these circumstances, the following order is made:-RE: CIV/APN/318/01:
3 of the Notice of motion is discharged, that is to say the Writ
of Execution in CIV/T/598/95 (C. of A. (civ) No.26/99 still
of Sale in execution published on the 29th June 2001 is set aside
as being irregular.
Respondent is directed to make available all his movable assets
to the Deputy Sheriff who shall take inventory of the same in the
presence of Mr Pitso of Oxbow Land and Property Consultants and
of the attorneys of the applicants and respondents.
Deputy Sheriff to comply strictly with the provisions of Rule 46
and Rule 47 before the immovable assets of Mr Sole are attached
and sold in execution.
party to bear its own costs.
Applicant : Mr Khauoe (also for respondents in CIV/APN/319/01)
Respondent : Mr Moiloa (also for applicant in CIV/APN/319/01)
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law