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 1st 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