HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
SETLOKOANE 2nd Respondent
MAHAO 3rd Respondent
RAFUBE 4th Respondent
the Hon. Mr Justice M.L. Lehohla on the 31st day of March, 2001.
perusal of the papers, and hearing submissions by Counsel for
respective parties in this application the Court dismissed the
application with costs and indicated that reasons would follow. Here
do they follow below.
applicant approached the High Court seeking relief against the
respondents by means of a notice of motion set out as follows :
the applicant intends to make an application for –
of the late filing of an appeal
order calling upon first respondent to dispatch within 14 days of
receipt of this notice to the Registrar of the Honourable Court the
Review Order sought to be appealed against and the Record of
proceedings allegedly placed before him on which the Review Order
of the application be costs in the cause.
founding affidavit the applicant avers that –
May 1991 she brought an action against the respondents at the
Ramokoatsi Central Court in case number CC 203/90.
result from the above proceeding was quashed by the Learned
Magistrate Mr Lentsoe in the Mafeteng Subordinate Court.
review order was granted in the absence of the applicant around 28th
or 29th August 1991.
applicant went to the Senior Clerk of Court to seek to be furnished
with the review order but in vain as the order couldn't be found
days later around 2nd September the applicant managed to obtain the
Review order from the Ramokoatsi Central Court and subsequently went
to consult her lawyers.
states that it was thus impossible for her to file the appeal against
the review order timeously.
application for setting aside the review order is opposed by the 2nd
Respondent 'Masetlokoane Setlokoane who avers in her opposing
affidavit that some of the facts deposed to by applicant are not
respondent challenges that if the applicant has failed to show
prospects of success on appeal then the application to appeal out of
time is ill-advised.
on to indicate that the Minister of the Interior and Chieftainship
Affairs and the Attorney General ought to have been joined as
interested parties in
matter in all courts including the court of first instance. I agree
with this view and on the basis of non-joinder would regard that the
application ought to be dismissed on that ground alone.
respondent has correctly observed that the Central Court has no
jurisdiction to be seized of the matter in CC 203/90 thus the
reviewing Court a quo ought to have so ruled in the reviewing
proceedings which came before it.
respondent further relied on the procedure set out in section 5 of
the Chieftainship Act 1968 as (amended) setting out the procedure to
be followed where there is a dispute or uncertainty concerning
boundaries of the authority of a chief.
procedure was set out by Plewman J.A. in C. of A. (CTV) No 17 of 1987
(unreported) at pg 7 onwards in terms whereof the following
principles relating to subsections (8), (9) and (10) of section 5
were enunciated :
if a dispute arises on the application of a Chief, the Minister
must, if it is a genuine dispute, appoint an ad hoc committee. In
doing so he acts in an administrative capacity and his discretion is
limited to determining whether or not there is a dispute"
no improper conduct can be shown, the Court has no jurisdiction to
pronounce upon the Minister's acts".
boundaries could always, on good cause and in a proper case, be
reviewed and redefined".
Motsarapane vs Motsarapane 1979( 1) LLR Cotran CJ as he then was
"The law in general is that where a statute provides ways to
redress an alleged wrong steps should be taken first under the
statute before resort is made to courts". I am in respectful
agreement with this dictum.
In C. of
A. (CIV) 24 of 1986 Posholi Peete vs Celina Ramakoro the Court of
appeal endorsed the view that courts have no jurisdiction in the
matter of the determination and definition of chiefly boundaries. But
in C. of A. (CIV) No 17 of 1987 The Minister of the Interior & 5
Others vs Chief Letsie Bereng (unreported) at p.7 it was indicated
that the Court can intervene where the empowered authorities or
bodies fail to comply with the requirements of the relevant
the submission that the applicant lodged her claim before a wrong
forum when she approached the Ramokoatsi Central Court as this was
clearly a matter within the administrative province of the Minister
to determine and not any Court of Law. In my humble view Courts of
Law do not lay down boundaries. As the Court
there were no prospects of success on appeal it refused the
application with costs
and it is
Applicant: Mr Masiphole
Respondent: Mr Mda
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