CIV/APN/251/89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the Application of:

LITSITSO CHOKOBANE Applicant

v

JOSHUA NOABAMBI 1st Respondent

LESOTHO
FUNERAL SERVICES 2nd Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice M.L. Lehohla on the
6th day of 0ctober 1989.

This application was originally brought before court ex
parte. In other words only one side was represented before court
when the
matter came to it. The applicant purported on the ex parte
application to bring this application on the basis of being a
successor
and heir to his father. It was on that basis that a rule
nisi was then issued, whereas the proper approach is for a party
which is
moving an application ex parte to disclose everything, in
other words show the bona fides to the court.

One such fact should have been - as shown and exposed by
the respondent - that actually applicant is not the heir, the heir is
his
elder brother who is late, and this/is commmon cause. And we
have also been told that the applicant's deceased's brother has sons,
male twins, in fact those are the people who ought to have brought
this application for they are the heirs of the applicant's father
in
the absence of their late father. And if the family had appointed
the applicant to appear here it should have been made clear
that he
is appearing in a

/representative

-2-

representative capacity on behalf of those twins or one
of them. But as it is, he told me that he is the successor and heir
as was
pointed out in so many words by counsel for the 1st
Respondent. The court was perfectly entitled to dismiss the
application on that
score. However applicant's counsel has referred
me to what I find irresistible, namely Annexure A and that that in
fact the payments
which were affected by the 1st Respondent to
applicant's family were in respect of elopement. Nothing shows that
there was marriage
in the matter. But at the same time it is
untenable to say, in fact that the applicant had any locus standi to
bring this application
before this Court.

What I do find is - and I make a finding, a positive
finding which is not what I have been requested to do but still a
positive finding
- that there was no marriage between the first
respondent and ,the deceased. This I arrived at on the basis of the
evidence that
is available before me. In the same breath I find that
the applicant was not entitled to come to this Court, he has got no
locus
standi.

Consequently with the exception of the technical prayers
which preface the application as to urgency the rule nisi is
discharged with
costs.

J U D G E.
6th October, 1989.

For Applicant : Mr. Mafisa For respondents : Mr.
Pheko.