IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the
PAULOSE MOTLATSI RAJELE ...... Applicant
BELINA 'MALERATO RAJELE 1st Respondent.DEPUTY-SHERIFF (Mr. L. 'Nyane) 2nd Respondent
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice B.K. Molai on the
23rd day of February, 1990.
The applicant herein has moved the court for an order,
against the Respondents, framed in the following terms:
"(a) Staying the execution of judgment in
CIV/APN/224/87 pending the determination of the appeal
Directing second Respondent to releaseforthwith tD
Applicant the propertyattached and/or removed by him on
Directing Respondents to pay the costshereof only
in the event of opposition;
Granting Applicant such further and/oralternative
The Respondents intimated their intention to oppose the
application. Affidavits were duly filed by the parties.
Very briefly, it is clear from the affidavits that the
gist of the relief sought by the applicant is the stay of
execution of maintenance order which the first defendant has
pendente lite, against the applicant. Assuming
the correctness that
the order was obtained pendente lite, it stands
to reason that the proceedings in which the order was granted were
interlocutory. It is trite law that no appeal lies
decision given in interlocutory proceedings unless, of course, it is
by leave of the court of appeal.
It is common cause that although the appeal has been
lodged to the court of appeal against the decision of the High Court
maintenance order, pendente lite, the former
court has not given a decision in the matter. That being so, the
decision of the High Court still stands good.
It was on the basis of a valid decision of the High
Court that a writ of execution had been issued and the Deputy Sheriff
it out. The fact that an appeal has been lodged to the court
of appeal does not automatically render a judgment of the High Court
invalid. I am not convinced, therefore, that it would be proper for
this court to order stay of execution which is being carried
the basis of a valid judgment of the High Court merely because an
appeal has been lodged for leave to appeal against an order
in interlocutory proceedings.
It has, however, been pointed out that at the time he
attached and removed applicant's property in execution, the Deputy
attention was drawn to the fact that some of the property,
thus attached and removed, belonged to certain people and not the
That being so, it seems to me that before he could sell
the property by auction sale to satisfy the judgment for maintenance
agains the applicant, the second Respondent would first have to
comply with the provisions of Rule 51 of the High Court Rules 1980
3/ inter-pleader ........
inter-pleader summons/proceedings against the claimants
of the attached property, otherwise this application is not granted
of prayers (a) and (b) of the notice of motion.
It is worth mentioning that yesterday when the judgment
was delivered in open court I mistakenly said the application was
in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the notice of motion. This
morning I told the Assistant Registrar (Miss Sello) to call the two
counsels before me in order to advise them of the correction I wished
to make in the judgment. Neither of them appeared before me
proceeded to make the necessary correction so that the decision
reads: application is "not granted" instead of "granted"
in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the notice of motion.
This being a family dispute I would not make an order as
JUDGE 23rd February, 1990.
For Applicant : Mr. Pheko For Respondent : Mr.
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