HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
MONESE 1st RESPONDENT
MONESE 2nd RESPONDENT
by the Hon. Mr Justice T. Nomngcongo on the 9th September, 2003
an application brought under a certificate of urgency couched in the
Rule Nisi (sic) be issued calling upon the Respondents to show cause
why the following prayers cannot be made absolute.;
with the periods of notice of (sic) modes of service due to
Order of Court dated 18th August 2003 shall not be stayed pending
the determination of this application.
original Rule Nisi shall not be re-instated.
original Application of Stay of Execution pending Appeal shall not
be determined after both Applicant and Respondents have
of suit in the event of opposition.
Prayers 1(a) and (b) shall operate with immediate effect.
history of the case is that the respondents herein obtained judgment
against the applicant, in this court. An appeal was
noted against the
judgment which I understand is due to be heard in the October session
of the Court of Appeal. In the mean time
applicant lodged an
application in this court for stay of execution pending that appeal.
That application was dismissed by this
court on the 18th August 2003
in the absence of the applicant or his legal representatives.
present application obviously calls upon me to revisit that which I
decided on the 18th of August. Mr Matooane for applicant
this Court. Of course, he is correct it was an order of this court
dismissing the application after hearing argument on
behalf of the
respondents no reasons were given when the decision was handed down
ex tempore but that makes it. No less an order
of court. To ask me to
revisit it is the same thing as asking me rescind it and no argument
or semantic acrobatics would alter
that. Whether the decision amounts
to absolution from the instance or not, is absolutely irrelevant for
Rules and trite principles to be followed when one applies for
rescission. The application, choosing to play on semantics
seeks, not rescission but "re-instatement", has ignored all
of them. The court cannot come to his assistance.
the court is of the view that all that the applicant was seeking was
to delay the day of reckoning by surreptitiously extending
initial rule nisi staying execution pending judgment that was
obtained ex part in the first place.
application is dismissed with costs.
Applicant : Mr. Matooane
Respondents : Mr. Mosae
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