CIV\APN\192\91 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter between:
MOTSOALIPAKENG TLOKOTSI Applicant
THUSO MOTLALENTOA 1st Respondent
MOTLALENTOA 2nd Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Honourable Mr. justice J.L. Kheola
on the 4th day of March. 1992.
On the 14th November, 1991 I delivered an impromptu
judgment committing both respondents to prison for contempt of court.
I went on my annual leave on the 13th December, 1991 and
returned on the 31st January, 1992. I was informed by the
Registrar that the respondents want a written judgment
because they want to appeal.
In his application the applicant sought an order in the
That the rules prescribed for service bedispensed
with on the basis of theurgency of this application.
That a Rule Nisi issue returnable on thedate and
time to be determined by thisHonourable Court calling upon
therespondents herein to show cause if any.
(a) The Respondents shall not bearrested by the
and committed to prison for contempt of Court,
The Respondents shall not beordered to desist
and\orrefrain from interfering withthe applicant's rights to
The Applicant shall not bepermitted to harvest
The Respondents shall not beordered to pay costs of
This Honourable Court shall notgrant applicant such
furtherand\or alternative relief as itmay deem fit.
3. That prayer 2(a) operate with immediate effect as an
In the founding affidavit the applicant avers that he
was the respondent in CIV\APN\18\87 and the first respondent in the
application was the appellant. The High Court passed judgment
in the applicant's favour, that the disputed land was his and that
the first respondent was therefore unlawfully ploughing and
cultivating it and that they should be arrested by the Morija police
and be committed to prison for contempt of court.
The applicant avers as follows in paragraph 6 of his
"I verily aver that the 1st and 2nd respondents are
still cultivating the
said field inspite of the judgment of the said court."
He avers that the 2nd respondent was also ordered not to
cultivate the said field and has disobeyed the said judgment
the Lesotho Court of Appeal (C. of A. (CIV) 20 OF 1987).
During the ploughing season of 1991 the respondents did prevent him
using the said land and they have grown maize crop.
In his answering affidavit the first respondent avers as
follows in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7:
It is not correct that this HonourableCourt decided
in favour of Applicant.What this Honourable Court did was
toconfirm the decision of the ActingPrincipal which
instructed Chief Leutsoato allocate and confirm Applicant on
thisfield. Chief Leutsoa has to-date notdone so. In any
event Chief Leutsoawould not allocate and confirm Applicanton
this field. It is the Land AllocatingCommittee which should
allocate land andit is not bound to act in accordance withthe
instructions of the Acting PrincipalChief. In the premises
Applicant has notbeen allocated the field and has no
titlethereto for the reasons aforesaid.
I admit that I am still cultivating thefield in
question. I have been ploughingit even before Applicant took me
to Courtinitially. As Applicant has not beenallocated the
field he cannot complain
about my ploughing of the field which is not his. Until
he is so allocated he has no rights over the same. It is only the
the Land Allocating Committee which may complain. They have
to-date not done so. At the very least Applicant should have joined
in this application.
I deny the contents hereof, a properreading of
this judgment clearlyindicates that it dealt with the
questionof the procedure under rule 52 of therules of court.
I have never prevented Applicant fromploughing this
field. I have to mentionhowever that he will have the right
tocultivate the field only after he hasbeen duly allocated
the same under thelaw. He has not been so allocated. Hehas
as a result no right to the saidfield. My allocation has not
beendeclared invalid. It could not be sodeclared without
joining the LandAllocating Committee in such proceedings.
CIC\A\18\87 was an appeal from the judgment of the
learned Judicial Commissioner delivered on the 25th October, 1985. He
had set aside
the judgment of Matsieng Central Court and reinstated
the judgment of Matsieng Local Court which had awarded the land in
to the present applicant. At the end of the day the appeal
was dismissed with costs.
The present respondents are aware of this judgment but
want to give their own interpretation of that judgment.
I am surprised that their attorney also pretends that the judgment is
clear. The appeal by the respondents, against a judgment of the
Judicial Commissioner which was against them, was dismissed. The
respondents have not appealed against the
-5-judgment of this Court but they are continuing to
order of this Court by using the land in question and
giving their own interpretation of a very simple and straightforward
The Court will not allow them to get aware with it. The
second respondent has not even filed an opposing affidavit to try to
herself. The applicant has
averred that the second respondent and the first
respondent, who are husband and wife, are continuing to use the land
well that the appeal they tool against the judgment of
the learned Judicial Commissioner was dismissed. They know well that
have not appealed against that judgment which was delivered on
the 16th July, 1988. I am most surprised that their attorney who is
an officer of this Court drew an affidavit in which the first
respondent deliberately and maliciously gives a wrong interpretation
of a very simple judgment. Mr. Nathane ought to have advised his
clients better. They are obviously involved in delaying tactics.
It is contempt of court to disobey an order of a
competent court (See 'Matau Makhetha v. Rex 1975 L.L.R. 431; Section
15 (a) of Central
and Local Courts Proclamation No.62 of 1938).
In the result the application was granted in terms of
prayers (a), (b), (c) and (e). The respondents were committed to
four months each for contempt of court.
J.L. KHEOLA JUDGE
4th March, 1992.
For Applicant - Mr. Maqutu For Respondents - 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