HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
SEEISO MOHOLOBELA Applicant
SEPEPANA 1st Respondent
MAPHEKHO 2nd Respondent
TSOLOHO NAKALEBI 3rd Respondent
RALINTSI 4th Respondent
RALINTSI 5th Respondent
HIGH COURT N.O. 6th Respondent
by the Honourable Mr Justice T. Nomngcongo
already dismissed this application and indicated that my reasons
would follow. These are my reasons.
applicant approached court on a certificate of urgency seeking relief
in the following terms:-
with the ordinary rules pertaining to the modes and periods of
service due to the urgency of this matter.
the parties to file their respective pleadings with such shortened
periods as this Honourable Court shall deem fit to
matter to be dealt with on an urgent basis.
rule nisi do hereby issue calling upon to show cause if any on the
date to be determined by the above Honourable Court why:-
Respondents and/or their agents shall not be interdicted from
burying the body of the late Alice Mamapolesa Seeiso Moholobela
(Alias Alice Mamphekho) at a site situated at Matelile belonging to
the estate of the late Chief Simon Joel Seeiso Moholobela.
first to third Respondents and/or their agents shall not be
restrained from disposing, alienating, destroying and/or selling
both movable and immovable assets of the estate of the late Chief
Simon Joel Seeiso Moholobela.
purported marriage between the late Chief Simon Joel Seeiso
Moholobela and the late Alice Mamapolesa Seeiso Moholobela (Alias
Alice Mamphekho) shall not be declared null and void and of no force
estate of the late Simon Joel Seeiso Moholobela shall not devolve
intestate under Common Law . on the Applicants as heirs
estate of the late Simon Joel Seeiso Moholobela.
first to third Respondents shall not be ejected from the site
situated at Matelile Ha Seeiso they are presently occupying
belonging to the late Chief Simon Joel Seeiso Moholobela.
Respondents shall not be ordered to pay the costs of this (sic)
proceedings in the event of opposing this application.
and/or alternative relief.
prayer 1,2,3(a) and 3(b) operate with immediate effect as interim
Nisi was ordered to issue by my sister Hlajoane J. in terms of the
notice of motion and applicant obtained an interim court
was anticipated by the respondents in terms of Rule 8 (18) by notice
to the applicants. Together with the notice the
2nd applicant also
filed a rather lengthy supporting affidavit whose sole purpose was to
motivate the anticipation of the rule.
This was completely
unnecessary as such a notice serves, in my view the same purpose as a
notice of intention to oppose and it
certainly is not an application
and it should never have been brought as such. This was an improper
procedure which the applicants
might have, but have not chosen to
object to in terms of Rule 30 (1). They did so at their own peril.
remark that it has now most unfortunately become a regular feature in
applications regarding the right of burial of deceased
applicants to simultaneously stake their claims for inheritance in
the deceased estates. They then ride on the need
for urgency in such
a situation to try and get what they would normal have to get by way
of action because of the inherent and
therefore quite foreseeable
disputes of facts, such as, are matters of inheritance. This is an
abuse of process.
one such application. The death of the deceased has been used as an
occasion to have the applicants declared as heirs to
the estate of
the Chief Simon Seeiso Moholobela, to declare his marriage to the
respondents late mother null and void and to eject
respondents from a
certain site belonging to that estate. There is nothing urgent about
matter was argued before me Counsel on both sides agreed that the
only question central to all these issues before me was
valid marriage or not between the late Chief Simon Joel Seeiso
Moholobela and the late Alice Mamapolesa Seeiso Moholobela.
passing it is interesting to note that the applicants themselves
refer to her by a name denoting or at least suggesting that
regard her as the wife of the late Chief. Counsel confined their
brief argument to only this aspect of the matter and I propose
address such argument only more so because of the view that I hold of
the case. The question whether the late Alice Mamapolesa
Moholobela was the wife of the late Chief Simon Joel Seeiso
Moholobela does not arise for the first time in these proceedings.
was raised when the late Chief died and the late Alice claimed the
right to bury him. The respondents say that matter has not
decided. The applicants said nothing about this in their founding
papers. That of course amounts to material non-disclosure
application brought ex parte. But then again this dispute was just
not only foreseeable by the applicants who approached
the court ex
parte, but it was also known to the applicants at least one of whom
was a party in that case (CIV/APN/209/02) (See
Deke v Maghoai Marystella Qhoai & 4 ORS. 1985 – 1990 LLR p.
458). In view of this it is not necessary for me to
there was a valid marriage or not between the late Chief Moholobela
and Alice Moholobela: The application itself
is misconceived. It was
not urgent and there were clear disputes of fact.
application was dismissed and the rule nisi discharged.
Applicant: Mr Dichaba
Respondents : Mr Mosito
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