IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter between :

TS'EPO
RABOKO PLAINTIFF

AND

LOUSE
RABOKO DEFENDANT

Review
Case No.: 122/2003 CC 1048/2001

Review
Order No.:ll/2003 In Maseru District

ORDER ON
REVIEW

The
record of proceedings, in this matter, has been placed before me with
the following note from the trial Magistrate :

"I hereby request that the afore-mentioned proceedings be
reviewed as I have made a patent mistake of granting conflicting

orders herein:

The facts
are, in a nutshell, that on 9th November 2001 plaintiff filed, with
the Clerk of the Maseru Magistrate Court, summons
commencing an
action in which he sued the defendant for maintenance at the rate of
M600.00 per month, costs of suit, further and/or
alternative relief.
On 23rd July 2002

1

plaintiff
applied for and was granted judgment by default, as prayed in the
summons, on the ground that defendant had intimated
no intention to
defend the action. On 6th December 2002 plaintiff applied for and
obtained a garnishee order against the defendant
and his employer
(Lesotho Express Delivery Service).

It is
worth mentioning that no evidence had been adduced in support of the
application for the default judgment. This being an action
for
payment of maintenance, it is difficult to understand how, in the
absence of evidence, the court was able to determine the
amount of
monthly maintenance to be paid by the defendant.

Be that
as it may, on 19th December 2002 defendant successfully applied for
the rescission of the default judgment and the garnishee
order.
However, on 19th May 2003 plaintiff also approached the court with an
application to rescind the rescission of the default
judgment and the
garnishee order which had been granted on 23rd July 2002 and 6th
December 2002, respectively. The application
was granted.

2

In my
view, once the court had, on 19th December 2002, rescinded the
default judgment and the garnishee order, the defendant had
to be
afforded the opportunity to defend the action. That was not done.
Instead, the court confused the issue by granting the application
to
rescind the rescission order which had been made on 19th December
2002. That was improper and ought not to have been done.

In the
result, the following order is made, on review:

(i) The rescission order of 19th May 2003 is set aside;

(ii) The rescission order of 19th December 2002 is re-

inslated; and

(iii) The defendant is accordingly to be afforded the

opportunity to defend the action.

B.K.
MOLAI

JUDGE

05/08/03

cc: The
Magistrate - Maseru

All Magistrates

3