CRI/APN/259/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
HELD AT MASERU
In the matter between
MOJALEFA NTOI Applicant
AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS First Respondent
THE CLERK OF COURT Second Respondent
THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE Third Respondent
Judgment
Delivered the by Honourable Mr Justice T Monapathi on 3rd day of August 2006
This matter was filed on the 27th June 2006 on a notice of motion. It was being, primarily, that the matter or the proceedings in CR 207/06 of Berea Magistrate's Court be reviewed/corrected and set aside. Fortunately we have a record of proceedings which was typed written and dispatched to this court as annexure "MM 1."
2
The record of appearances showed that Applicant's counsel appeared together with Mrs Makholela for the Crown on the 3rd of July when then before Moiloa AJ the matter was postponed to the 10th of July 2006 by consent The learned Judge ordered then that Respondents
should file answering affidavit not later than Friday the 7th of July, 2006.
The court further emphasized that that there appealed to be no need to file replying affidavits in order to obviate any delay. That the matter would then be heard on the 10th July 2006 when then Heads of Argument should have been filed. And the record of proceedings should have been paginated. Regrettably none of these have been done.
This brings home to all concerned the extent to which orders by Judges of this court can be disobeyed with impunity, and with lack of seriousness. This matter is an example. This is to be regretted.
3
I take the attitude exemplified by Counsel very seriously. My approach will be firstly to confront Counsel informally in a matter like this. Indeed there is only one matter and one occasions where I have had to refer the counsel concerned (Crown Counsel) to her superiors for necessary warning and action. I made it a matter of record. On this occasion I consoled myself because the Counsel concerned was a junior. But I have to show my displeasure.
On the 10th July, 2006 I gave yet another order postponing the matter to the 13th July, 2006. I further ordered that the Applicant could file a supplementary affidavit and that the Crown can accordingly file an answering affidavit or further affidavit in which grounds for opposition would stated. Mr Nthontho for Applicant informs me that he has filed the supplementary affidavit Still the Crown has not filed any paper's except the Notice of Intention to Oppose. The reason given by the Crown is that the learned Magistrate was not available. I wondered why the Clerk of Court
4
would not have filed an affidavit nor the Public Prosecutor in the court a quo.
In the circumstances of this matter I found it unnecessary comment about the applicants' complaints. It was clear that the Crown stubbornly intended not to oppose the matter or to comply with orders given by the court. The matter is therefore still not opposed.
The application is accordingly granted.
T Monapathi
Judge