CIV/T/25/80

CIV/T/26/80

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the Appeal of

MOHAU M. TS'IRA Plaintiff

LESOTHO NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Defendant

AND

'MALERATO MOFOBATHO Plaintiff

LESOTHO NATIONAL INSURACE CO. Defendant

Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice Rooney on the 5th day of May, 1980.

Both these natters are taken together for the purposes of this ruling.

On the 25th March, 1980 in both cases this Court made an order allowing the plaintiffs' exceptions to picas filed by the defendant in two separate actions. These orders were made by consent and the defendant was given leave to file fresh pleas within 14 days. In each case the costs of the exceptions were awarded to the respective plaintiffs.

Two bills of costs were presented for taxation. In one case the Taxing Master proceeded with the taxation on the 27th March and in the other on the 1st April. In neither case did a representative of the defendants attorneys attend the taxation and the Taxing Master was not given any notice that there was any objection to the taxation itself or any item included in the bills of costs.

On the 23rd April 198O the defendant filed a request for revision of both taxations under Rule 44 (1) of the High Court Rules. It is objected in both cases that there was no order for costs in favour of the plaintiffs and in addition certain items of costs are challenged without the nature of the objections being set out.

2/ I have ....

- 2 -

I have decided to dispose of the natter under Rule 44 (2) without hearing the parties.

In Mothebesoane v. Mothebesoane 1971-73. L.L. R. 211 it was quite clearly laid down by Jacobs C.J. that where a party to proceedings seeks a review of taxation, he may only invoke the procedure laid down in Rule 44 if he is dissatisfied as to any item or part of an item in a bill of costs which may have been objected to before the Taxing Master.

In the present instance, no objections were made before the Taxing Master as the defendants representatives chose not to attend taxation proceedings. Moreover, the present requests have been presented to the Court more than 14 days after the certificate or allocatur of the Taxing Master was signed and they are therefore out of time in terms of Rule 44 (1).

These requests arc refused and since they have been served on the plaintiffs' Attorney I direct under Rule 44 (3) that in each case the defendants shall pay M15 costs to the plaintiffs.

F.X. ROONEY 5th May, 1980.

For Plaintiff - Messrs. O.K. Mofolo & Co. For Defendant - Messrs. C.M.Masoabi & Co.

For Plaintiff - Messrs. O.K. Mofolo & Co.

For Defendant - Messrs. C.M Masoabi & Co.