1

CIV/APN/169/97

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
Application of:

SALAE
OROPENG LETSIE Applicant

vs

SEQOBELA
SALOMONS MOHALE 1st Respondent

MAPOHO
LILLANE 2nd Respondent

MARAKABEI
MAPOKI 3rd Respondent

PRINCIPAL
CHIEF OF MATSIENG 4th Respondent

MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS AND

CHIEFTAINSHIP
AFFAIRS 5th Respondent

ATTORNEY
GENERAL 6th Respondent

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Hon. Mr Justice M L Lehohla on the 4th day of June.1999

In
C1V/APN/169/97 Salae Oropeng Letsie vs Seqobela SALOMONS Mohale and
five others, the Court first heard the matter on the 25th
May, 1999
when it disposed of the portion that affected the 2nd respondent
'Mapoho

2

Lillane,
the 3rd respondent Marakabei Mapoki, the 4th respondent the Principal
Chief of Matsieng, as well as the nominal respondents;
namely the 5th
respondent the Ministry of Home Affairs and Chieftainship Affairs and
the 6th respondent the Attorney General.

On that
day the Court made the following order; namely :-

"The matter as regards the 1st respondent Seqobela SALOMONE
Mohale through whose lawyer it has been indicated that a point
of law
is to be raised is postponed. With regard to the rest of the
respondents who have either not filed their notices of intention
to
oppose nor opposing papers timeously the Court rules that they are
time-barred. Court therefore refuses to grant postponement
in respect
of the 3rd respondent also, that is in respect of Marakabei Mapoki..
Today's costs, (that is the costs of the 25th May,
1999) are awarded
against the 2nd respondent i.e. 'Mapoho Lillane and the 1st
respondent i.e. Seqobela SALOMONE Mohale. The Court
further makes an
order that 1st respondent should be personally served with notice of
set down for the next hearing" which
happens to be today and the
Court re-emphasises that it is important that the rules of Court be
observed.

Today is the day when the portion of the above order affecting the
1st respondent was to be dealt with; and accordingly it appears
from
the papers that the applicant's lawyer Mrs Kotelo caused a notice of
set down to be served on the 1st respondent. Reading
from the return
of service it is clear that the 1"

3

respondent
was served with the notice of set down for today; and the notice of
set down says service was effected on the 28th May,
1999 at Semonkong
(Mahlabatheng).

However
the 1st respondent has made no appearance before Court. His name has
been called three times over the public address system
and the
orderly's report to Court was that there is no response. It is for
this reason therefore that the Court was urged on behalf
of the
applicant to go on with the case; and a prayer, again by the
applicant's lawyer, was that judgment should be granted by
default
inasmuch as it could be surmised that the 1st respondent has
abandoned the points raised in limine which had been raised
on his
behalf by his erstwhile lawyer, Mr Khasipe who had later forsaken him
at the eleventh hour in consequence of which the Court
gave the 1st
respondent an opportunity to either come personally or through a
lawyer of his choice to argue the matter; but notwithstanding
that
indulgence and the fact that he has personally been served with a
notice of set down to appear today, he is not in attendance.

So the
Court has no hesitation in granting judgment for the applicant
against the 1st respondent as well. I need not go into the
question
of the answer to the points raised in limine because now those have
not been argued.

4

The case
therefore is disposed of on the ground that it appears that the 1^st
respondent has abandoned the defence that he sought to raise in the
points of law raised.

In the
circumstances judgment is entered with costs against the 1st
respondent as well.

JUDGE

4th June,
1999

For
Applicant: Mrs Kotelo

for
Respondents : Mr Lesuthu